however, to weep for the tainted reputationsnof deputy attorney generals andnsuch, who should find it relatively easynto lick their wounds in big firms innWashington and Wall Street. (At anynrate, individuals who are not indictednare reimbursed for all of their legalnfees.)nEasriand notes that the independentncounsel in the North investigationn”persistently tried to subpoena the Canadiannambassador to the UnitednStates; although in the end the districtncourt held that his subpoenas violatedndiplomatic immunity, a great deal ofnexpensive diplomatic china was brokennin the process.” Once we begin tonabolish domestic institutions becausenthey irk the Canadians, where will wenstop? There is no check on executivencorruption and tyranny that a Presidentncannot characterize as interferencenwith his foreign affairs powers.nEven weaker than these practicalnarguments are Eastland’s constitutionalncriticisms of the independent counselnstatute. But then, few statutes are sonobviously constitutional as this. ArticlenII says that the President “shall norriinate,nand by and with the advice andnconsent of the Senate, shall appoint”nfederal officers, except that “the Congressnmay by law vest the appointmentnof such inferior officers as they thinknproper, in the President alone, in thencourts of law, in the heads of departments.”nCongress in 1978 thought itnproper to vest the appointment ofnindependent counsel, an inferior officer,nin the courts of law. End of case.nThat is what, in effect, the 7-to-lnmajority of the Supreme Court, in annopinion written by conservative ChiefnJustice William Rehnquist, decided inn1988 in Morrison v. Olson. OnlynJustice Scalia disagreed, in a dissentingnopinion marred by significant errors ofnhistorical fact (he relies on the discreditednscholarship of Chief Justice Taft inna 1926 opinion about presidential removalnpower, and he claims that prosecutorialndiscretion has always beennconsidered an executive prerogative, annassertion true neither for Britain, manynof the American states, nor the federalngovernment itself).nEastland’s suggestion that the independentncounsel is not an “inferiornofficer,” because the attorney generalncannot remove him at will, is toonsophistical even to rebut. A more seri­nous constitutional argument holds thatnthe Constitution, through the “executivenpower” and “take care” clausesnof Article II, vests the President withnarbitrary and illimitable control over allnfederal officers. (Not only the independentncounsel statute, but the fixed termnof the FBI director, violates this royalistnideal.)nUnder the kings of Britain, royalngovernors had often refused to executenthe laws of colonial assemblies, or hadnexecuted them “unfaithfully.” The ArticlenII clause charging the President ton”take care that the laws be faithfullynexecuted” is a warning to the Presidentnto obey the laws passed by Congress,nnot a grant of arbitrary power to quashnany federal investigation he dislikes.nFurthermore, the Constitution providesnnumerous hints that the President’sn”executive power” does not givenhim arbitrary control over all federalnadministration or law enforcement.nWhy, for example, if the President isnmaster of all executive officers, did thenFramers have explicitly to give him thisnpower to “require the opinion in writing,nof the principal officer in each ofnthe executive departments, upon anynsubject relating to the duties of theirnrespective offices”? The impeachmentnpower is another example. Congressncan impeach the President or any othernfederal officer. Finally, of course, thenConstitution allows Congress, by law,nto assign the appointment of inferiornofficers to heads of departments or thencourts, rather than to the President. Innthe 18th century, the power of removalnwas widely thought to be an incident ofnthe power of appointment. Indeed,nthere would be no reason to permitnother officers or courts to appoint federalnofficials, if the President, by virtuenof a plenary power of removal, becamentheir arbitrary master, once they werenappointed. You obey the fellow whoncan fire you, not the fellow who earlierngot you the job. However 20th-centurynjudicial activists such as Taft and Scalianhave misinterpreted it, the appoint-n,ment clause makes sense only as ancheck on presidential removal power.nCase dismissed.nEastland has tried valiantly to makenthe weaker appear to be the strongerncase. In the final analysis, though, hisnargument amounts to saying, in fancynlanguage, that Ed Meese can only beninvestigated by a lawyer who owes hisnnnCELEBRATEnTHE SOOTHnANNIVERSARYn1492-1992nOwn America’s FirstnCommemorative Type Coin —nTHE 1893 “COLUMBUS”nSILVER HALF DOLLARnMinted almost 100 years ago tonhonor the 400th anniversary ofnthe discovery of America, thisnvintage silver coin bears the firstncommemorative designs evernto appear on official U.S. coins.nThe Columbus bust and SantanMaria/Old & New Worldsnreverse were never repeated.nA sleeping classic -nan heirloom to cherishnA total of just 2.5 million werenoriginally struck (compared ton657 million Morgan silver dollars).nOnly a fraction survive innthe Very Fine quality we offer.nEach coin is 31 mm in diameter,ncontains 12.5 grams of .900 silvernand comes with a Certificatenof Authenticity and protectivencase. While current suppliesnlast, postpaid prices are asnfollows: $29 each; 5 for $139n(save $6); 10 for $275 (save$15);n20 for $539 (save $41). Ordern#7705. To order by credit card,ncall toll-free 1-800-451-4463. Ornsend your check or moneynorder to: International Coins &nCurrency, Inc., HE. State St.,nBox 218, Dept. 1627, Montpe-nUer, VT 05601. Money-backnguaranteenAUGUST 1990/41n