[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Curious Mr. Fox [@CuriousMrFox101](/creator/twitter/CuriousMrFox101) on x XXX followers Created: 2025-07-23 15:02:16 UTC The legality of the interim period for judicial appointments, such as the appointment of Desiree Leigh Grace as interim U.S. Attorney by New Jersey federal judges under XX U.S.C. § 546, hinges on Congress’s authority to delegate certain powers. This statute, amended in 2007, allows district courts to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for up to XXX days if the Attorney General’s interim appointee (like Alina Habba) expires or no appointment is made, stepping in to ensure continuity in the executive branch. This is legally grounded in the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), which permits Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers—such as interim U.S. Attorneys—in the judiciary, provided it’s done by law. Critics argue this oversteps into the President’s executive authority, especially in the recent case reported on July 22, 2025, where the judiciary’s action was seen as overriding Trump’s pick, but the Supreme Court has historically upheld such delegations (e.g., United States v. Hilario, 2011) as long as they’re temporary and congressionally authorized. Similarly, the President’s power to set tariffs, despite the Constitution granting Congress the taxing power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, also stems from congressional delegation. Laws like the Trade Act of 1974 allow the President to adjust tariffs under specific conditions—such as protecting national security or countering unfair trade practices—within limits set by Congress. For instance, Presidents Trump and Biden have used this authority, upheld by courts as recently as 2025 per Brookings Institute analyses, because Congress explicitly delegated it to address global trade dynamics efficiently. In both cases—judicial interim appointments and tariff adjustments—Congress acts as the rule-maker, sharing its constitutional powers with other branches for practical governance, though debates persist about whether these delegations stretch too far, as seen in the New Jersey U.S. Attorney controversy and tariff policy critiques. #ConstitutionalPower #GovernmentBasics XX engagements  **Related Topics** [usc football](/topic/usc-football) [federal judges](/topic/federal-judges) [jersey](/topic/jersey) [Post Link](https://x.com/CuriousMrFox101/status/1948035945795564012)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Curious Mr. Fox @CuriousMrFox101 on x XXX followers
Created: 2025-07-23 15:02:16 UTC
The legality of the interim period for judicial appointments, such as the appointment of Desiree Leigh Grace as interim U.S. Attorney by New Jersey federal judges under XX U.S.C. § 546, hinges on Congress’s authority to delegate certain powers. This statute, amended in 2007, allows district courts to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for up to XXX days if the Attorney General’s interim appointee (like Alina Habba) expires or no appointment is made, stepping in to ensure continuity in the executive branch. This is legally grounded in the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), which permits Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers—such as interim U.S. Attorneys—in the judiciary, provided it’s done by law. Critics argue this oversteps into the President’s executive authority, especially in the recent case reported on July 22, 2025, where the judiciary’s action was seen as overriding Trump’s pick, but the Supreme Court has historically upheld such delegations (e.g., United States v. Hilario, 2011) as long as they’re temporary and congressionally authorized.
Similarly, the President’s power to set tariffs, despite the Constitution granting Congress the taxing power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, also stems from congressional delegation. Laws like the Trade Act of 1974 allow the President to adjust tariffs under specific conditions—such as protecting national security or countering unfair trade practices—within limits set by Congress. For instance, Presidents Trump and Biden have used this authority, upheld by courts as recently as 2025 per Brookings Institute analyses, because Congress explicitly delegated it to address global trade dynamics efficiently. In both cases—judicial interim appointments and tariff adjustments—Congress acts as the rule-maker, sharing its constitutional powers with other branches for practical governance, though debates persist about whether these delegations stretch too far, as seen in the New Jersey U.S. Attorney controversy and tariff policy critiques.
#ConstitutionalPower
#GovernmentBasics
XX engagements
Related Topics usc football federal judges jersey