Scope Of Appointment Example: Fill & Download for Free

The complete sentence is, “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” (Emphasis mine, page 220 of Mueller’s report).The phrase a President instead of the President indicates that Mueller wasn’t specifically referring to Trump. However, Mueller was passing the issue to Congress for further investigation and possible impeachment when he said:Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation - for example, if the termination would have the effect of delaying or disrupting the investigation or providing the President with the opportunity to appoint a director who would take a different approach to the investigation that the President perceived as more protective of his personal interests. Relevant circumstances bearing on that issue include whether the President's actions had the potential to discourage a successor director or other law enforcement officials in their conduct of the Russia investigation. The President fired Comey abruptly without offering him an opportunity to resign, banned him from the FBI building, and criticized him publicly, calling him a "showboat" and claiming that the FBI was " in turmoil" under his leadership. And the President followed the termination with public statements that were highly critical of the investigation; for example, three days after firing Comey, the President referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" and asked, "when does it end?" Those actions had the potential to affect a successor director's conduct of the investigation.(Mueller Report, Vol II, Page 74, Page 286 in PDF)Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President's aides and associates beyond those already filed.(Mueller Report, Vol II, Pages 157–158, Pages 369-370 in PDF)

It is important to distinguish two orthogonal questions:What is the scope of public (socialized) decision making versus private (individual) decision making?How are public (socialized) decisions made?Your questions seems to conflate these two, but I think you’ll agree that these are really two different questions. In particular, the question of a democracy versus an oligarchy versus a monarchy (including a dictator) versus a theocracy, etc., is really just a question about how public decisions are made. It says absolutely nothing about what the scope of permissible decisions that the leaders (however determined) may make.For example, it is not too hard to image a democracy, with a constitution and three branches of government, with a thriving free market as well, that condones the purchase and sale of human slaves. In fact, we’ve had one.It is also not too hard to image a monarchy that recognizes broad liberties for its citizens and exercises monarchical decision making rarely, and in only minor matters, e.g., appointing archbishops.This is why libertarians focus (properly, IMHO) on the scope of government. The goal is to enlarge the sphere of what the individual can determine on his own, not just to seek out a kinder master.

Dr. K.SIVAN was an M. Tech from IISc, Bangalore. He passed out in 1982 and joined ISRO as an Engineer. Later he did his PhD from IITB in 2006 in Aerospace Engineering. After heading many ISRO projects for decades, last year he was appointed Chairman of ISRO. He is a son of a farmer who made it big.Electrical engineering is also an integral part of scheme of things. Even if Dr. Sivan is from aerospace background, the reason to give this example was to give you a little hope, after all we live on that hope for years to get out dreams.Scope is actually a very tricky word. You have to make a scope out of what you get. Forget about NASA, they will just give you money. Working for ISRO, you will get your golden shot to self satisfaction and revive that true Indian feeling. Why to lose it for an American dream?