The Appointment Clause: Understanding The Constitution's Power

The Appointments Clause, found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, outlines the process for appointing key officials such as ambassadors, ministers, and Supreme Court judges. It grants the president the power to nominate and appoint these officials with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clause also distinguishes between principal officers, who require Senate confirmation, and inferior officers, whose appointment can be delegated by Congress to the President, judiciary, or department heads. The Supreme Court has interpreted Officers of the United States as those wielding significant authority, but the exact scope of the clause remains disputed.

Explore related products

The President's Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution (Studies in Government and Public Policy)

$21.66 $37.99

The Law and Politics of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in Asia (Comparative Constitutional Change)

$152 $190

Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process (Princeton Legacy Library)

$148.11

Liberty and Union: A Constitutional History of the United States, volume 1

$232.28 $97.99

The President Shall Nominate: How Congress Trumps Executive Power

$43.87 $59.99

The Federal Appointments Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (Constitutional Conflicts)

$159.95 $39.95

The Appointments Clause's reach and scope

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President to nominate and appoint public officials, including ambassadors, ministers, consuls, Supreme Court judges, and other officers. The President exercises this power with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, which involves the Senate's confirmation of the President's nominees.

The distinction between "principal" and "inferior" officers has also generated controversy. Principal officers are appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent, while Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in courts of law, or in department heads. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

The Appointments Clause also serves as a restraint on Congress, preventing it from exercising appointment powers and filling offices with its supporters, thus preserving the President's control over the executive branch. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Appointments Clause provides insight into the structural makeup of the federal government and the distribution of powers among its branches.

Officers of the United States

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, vests the power to appoint officers of the United States in the executive branch, specifically the President of the United States. The President has the authority to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint public officials, including officers of the United States. This process ensures a separation of powers between Congress and the President.

The Appointments Clause distinguishes between two types of officers: principal officers and inferior officers. Principal officers, such as ambassadors, Cabinet secretaries, and federal judges, must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. On the other hand, inferior officers are those whose appointment Congress may vest in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The determination of whether an individual is a principal or inferior officer has been a subject of controversy, with the Supreme Court providing guidance in cases such as Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.

The President is not obligated to commission an appointee confirmed by the Senate and has discretion in appointing the successful candidate. A critical factor in determining whether the Appointments Clause applies is whether an individual is an "Officer of the United States," defined by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo as "any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." This definition has been further elaborated on in cases such as Edmond v. United States, where the Court held that civilian judges appointed to the Coast Guard Court of Appeals were inferior officers, and Morrison v. Olson, where the Court listed certain factors as hallmarks of inferior officer status, such as removability by a higher executive branch official.

The Appointments Clause also addresses the appointment of Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls. These individuals are considered representatives of the United States in foreign relations and are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President, as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, may also commission military officers, who achieve their rank before assuming their role.

The role of the Senate

The United States Senate is the upper chamber of Congress, with each state electing two senators to serve six-year terms. The Senate has a variety of powers and responsibilities, including:

Proposing legislation and drafting or amending bills

Senators can propose new laws and make changes to existing ones. They can also engage in filibusters, or prolonged debates, to delay or block legislation.

Treaty approval

The Senate has the power to approve or reject treaties negotiated by the executive branch. While the president can enter into executive agreements without Senate approval, treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate for passage. The Senate may also amend or make changes to a treaty.

Impeachment trials

The Senate serves as both jury and judge in impeachment trials, with the power to convict and remove from office executive or judicial officials, including the president, with a two-thirds vote. The House of Representatives has the power to impeach officials, but the Senate conducts the trial and makes the final decision.

Confirmation of presidential appointees

The Senate plays a crucial role in confirming presidential appointees to executive and judicial branch posts, including ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and Supreme Court justices. The president nominates individuals for these positions, but they must be approved by the Senate before taking office.

Oversight of the federal budget

The Senate has oversight authority over the federal budget, including the power to authorize and appropriate funds for government agencies and programs.

The Senate's role, as outlined above, is governed by the Constitution, standing rules, precedents, and special rules of procedure. The Senate's actions, including voting on treaties, appointments, and legislation, shape the country's laws and policies and serve as a check on the executive branch's power.

Explore related products

Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President

$22.49 $34.99

Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments

$75.1 $80

Debating Judicial Appointments in an Age of Diversity

$58.99

The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process

$14.55 $26.95

The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking)

$52.24 $54.99

Court on Trial: A Data-Driven Account of the Supreme Court of India

$24.99 $24.99

The difference between principal and inferior officers

The Appointments Clause, outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, establishes two tiers of officers: principal officers and inferior officers.

Principal officers are those who must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. On the other hand, inferior officers are those whose appointment Congress may place with the President alone, the judiciary, or department heads. Both types of officers are individuals who occupy positions that wield ""significant authority." ""

The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between the two types of officers. However, determining the difference between principal and inferior officers has been a subject of controversy. The Court's early Appointments Clause cases did not provide a clear distinction between the two, often focusing on the method of appointment or the duration of an officer's tenure.

In modern times, the Supreme Court has considered factors such as the authority to remove an officer and the scope of their role. For example, in Edmond v. United States (1997), the Court held that the Coast Guard Court judges were inferior officers because their work was directed and supervised by others appointed by presidential nomination.

The lack of a clear definition for what makes an officer principal or inferior has resulted in ad-hoc inquiries and balancing tests in appointment and removal cases. Parties in these cases often use precedential cases to build a framework that fits their desired outcome.

The historical background of the Appointments Clause

The Appointments Clause, part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, vests the power to appoint officers of the United States in the executive branch. The President nominates and appoints ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

The Framers also chose to place the power of appointment for principal officers with a single individual—the President—as a single actor would be more likely to be held accountable for their choices. Alexander Hamilton supported this view, arguing that a single President would have "fewer personal attachments to gratify" and would not be "distracted and warped by [a] diversity of views, feelings, and interests" that could influence a collective body.

The Appointments Clause does not specify all persons who fall under its purview, and its reach and scope have been disputed. In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court clarified that whether an individual wields "significant authority" determines whether they are an officer, but the Court has not elaborated further on this test. This distinction between "principal" and "inferior" officers has also generated controversy.

The historical treatment of the Appointments Clause by the Supreme Court has shed light on the structural makeup of the federal government and the balancing of power between its branches. For example, in Edmond v. United States (1997), the Court held that the Secretary of Transportation could appoint civilian judges to the Coast Guard Court of Appeals, as these judges were considered inferior officers.

Frequently asked questions