> Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? Of course it's unconstitutional. It

> Do you hold the opinion that the Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional? What about the Reorganization Act of 1939? Of course it's unconstitutional. It's clearly outlined in Article 2 that the President has the power to appoint: >> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Only judicial appointments are life terms and that's the only one outlined in Article 3. All other appointments are at the pleasure of the President. There's no mention of "Ambassador for Life" or "Minister until replacement is Senate confirmed" in the Constitution. For non-judicial appointments, the power to appoint includes the power to remove. > If the President can unilaterally fire any employee of the Executive Branch, why bother with Senate confirmation at all? To allow for autonomy of that individual at that agency. Otherwise the actions would need to roll up to the President directly requesting the said action via executive order. I see it as guardrails for when the Article 2 powers are being scaled out via long term delegation.