officers of the U.S. - responding to Professor Lederman

[seth tillman]

  Professor Lederman wrote:  "Who are the 'other officers' referred to?  Those established by statute.  'Law' -- i.e., statutes -- creates ALL the other, nonenumerated officers."  (capitalization added by Tillman)
   
  I'd like to press you on your use of "ALL."  If, for example, a treaty to which the U.S. is a party purportedly created an office to be held by and as an officer of the U.S., subject to presidential nomination, Senate advice and consent, and presidential appointment (and commissioning), would you say that the office is not established "by law," notwithstanding that the Supremacy Clause calls treaties laws?
   
  And if the office were not established by "law," i.e. by statute, would you say that the treaty had created no office at all (because all offices must be created by law), or would you say it just created an office outside of the aegis of the Appointments Clause?
   
  Seth Barrett Tillman
  

 


Seth Barrett Tillman
Member of the Delaware Bar
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=345891 
http://works.bepress.com/seth_barrett_tillman/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20071206/288db642/attachment.htm