25. Is this statute constitutional?

Under Article II, Section 2, the President is empowered «with the advice and consent of the Senate» to appoint «all 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. .. 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.» Although Congress may appoint its own officers to carry on internal legislative tasks (i.e., its staff), it may not appoint members of a body with administrative or enforcement powers; such persons are «officers of the United States» and must, pursuant to Article II, Section 2, be appointed by the President with senatorial confirmation unless Congress has vested their appointment in the President alone, in federal courts, or in heads of departments. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

The Constitution grants Congress a number of specific powers, many of which are enumerated in Article I, Section 8. It also grants Congress auxiliary power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This Clause gives Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper (i.e., appropriate) for carrying into execution any power granted to any branch of the federal government. As long as the law is rationally related to a constitutionally-specified objective and not expressly prohibited by another provision of the Constitution, it will be upheld.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 empowers Congress to «regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.» Commerce is defined as «every species of commercial intercourse. .. which concerns more states than one,» including virtually every form of activity involving or affecting two or more states. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

A is correct. In this case, two provisions of the statute violate the Appointments Clause. First, the provision limiting the President's options to a list of three nominees violates the President's power to nominate principal officers. Second, the automatic 30-day confirmation provision violates the requirement that the Senate be able to consent to the appointment of a principal officer. Based on those grounds, the statute is unconstitutional.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The statute does not restrict the President's powers to conduct foreign affairs because it applies only to the appointment of ambassadors. As stated above, the most applicable basis for finding it unconstitutional is its violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

C is incorrect. This is a misapplication of the law. As explained above, the statute does not properly abide by the Senate's advice and consent power. It replaces the President's power to nominate ambassadors, which may be based on the advice of the Senate, and deprives the Senate of discretion in consenting to the appointment because of the automatic confirmation provision.

D is incorrect. The statutory scheme for the nomination and confirmation of ambassadors is not proper under the Necessary and Proper Clause because two provisions of the statute violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and Congress may not pass legislation that is otherwise prohibited by the Constitution.