U.S. Attorneys Should Not Serve At President’s Pleasure, Law School Dean Says

[maddezmom]

U.S. Attorneys Should Not Serve At President’s Pleasure, Law School Dean Says

LITTLE ROCK — Congress should abolish the doctrine that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, an associate dean at the law school where fired federal prosecutor Bud Cummins received his law degree said Tuesday.

John DiPippa, associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law, spoke Tuesday at the Clinton School of Public Service on the Justice Department’s controversial firing last year of Cummins and seven other U.S. attorneys.

DiPippa said the firings, which critics claim were politically motivated, have been defended repeatedly with the explanation that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired for any reason or for no reason. Some, including presidential adviser Karl Rove, have suggested that limiting the president’s power to appoint and remove U.S. attorneys might be unconstitutional.

“I have come to a humble conclusion: They’re all wrong,” DiPippa said.

DiPippa said imposing limits on the president would be consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and with precedents set by past U.S. Supreme Court rulings.


more:http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/05/09/news/050907lrfiredatt.txt
“The framers wanted a strong executive, but not an all-powerful one,” he said.

[Lobster Martini]

1. Unconstitutional? Prove it, Rove.

I would think that the relevant part of the Constitution would be Article II Section 2

"He shall have power...blah blah blah...appoint...blah blah...other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States..."

Doesn't say anything about removal. Perhaps Rove is reading the secret Constitution that was ratified when no one was looking.

[ixion]

2. you know what is unconstitutional, KKKarl? The unPATRIOTic Act

THAT is unconstitutional. :grr: