Chapter 12 of the 8 HARPS book, available on Amazon

The Independent Attorney General Amendment

The Independent Attorney General Amendment

Independence That Cannot Be Fired

The Attorney General is, today, an at-will member of the President's Cabinet appointed by the President, confirmed by a simple Senate majority, and removable by the President for any reason or none, exactly like the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Labor. That structure made a certain sense when the office was understood as principally a policy adviser to the President on legal matters. It stopped making sense the moment the Department of Justice became, as it is today, the government's central law enforcement and prosecutorial authority. An authority that can be turned against the President's own political opponents, or shielded from turning against the President himself, by the same person who can be fired by the President for refusing to do either. Longstanding internal Justice Department norms already recognize half of this problem: informal guidelines have discouraged White House officials from directing the outcome of a specific investigation or prosecution for decades. What no norm has ever done is touch the one lever that would make that restriction enforceable in practice, the President's unrestricted power to fire the Attorney General who declines to comply. A wall that can be dismantled by firing the person standing at it is not a wall.

The closest thing to this problem already tried and tested at the federal level is the FBI Director's ten-year statutory term, created by Public Law 94-503 in 1976 as a direct response to J. Edgar Hoover's forty-eight years running the Bureau under eight Presidents. Congress capped the term at ten years, deliberately longer than two presidential terms, so that no single President could build or control the Bureau in his own image. It has mostly worked as a term limit. It did not work as an independence guarantee, because Congress never paired the term with removal protection. A Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion in 2011 confirmed what the statute's silence implied, that the FBI Director serves at the President's pleasure notwithstanding the ten-year term. James Comey's firing in May 2017, six years into a term meant to run until 2023, is the illustration: the term length meant nothing once removal was unrestricted. This Article closes that exact gap, not just for the Attorney General but for the Director one level below: the same ten-year term, paired with the same cause-only removal by Congress rather than the President, now applies to both offices, so the term actually means what it says.

The selection design gives the President meaningfully less control than the Appointments Clause alone would allow: the President nominates one of three candidates an independent Nominations Commission produces, and the Senate confirms by three-fifths. Forty-three states already elect their Attorney General independently of the Governor, on the view that a state's chief law enforcement officer answers to the public rather than to the head of the executive branch that officer's office may need to investigate. The federal government has no equivalent independent-selection tradition, because the Attorney General is a Presidential appointee under Article II, and this Article does not attempt to make the office elected. The Nominations Commission accomplishes a similar goal by a different route: no President can install a loyalist alone, because the field is set by an independent body and the Senate's supermajority threshold means only a broadly acceptable nominee can be confirmed at all. The same Commission, the same nomination process, and the same three-fifths confirmation threshold govern the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, closing the identical loyalty-capture risk one level below the Attorney General. Because the Director now answers to the same removal standard as the Attorney General above them, the Attorney General also has standing to petition for the Director's removal for cause. A supervisory check that exists alongside, not instead of, Congress's own petition authority.

Objection 1: the Attorney General is a principal officer under the Appointments Clause, and an office the President cannot remove at all may not survive Supreme Court review under Myers v. United States and Seila Law v. CFPB.

This is a constitutional amendment, not a statute, so it is not subject to the separation-of-powers doctrine the Court applied to statutory removal restrictions in those cases. A new constitutional provision amends Article II's removal power directly, exactly as a new constitutional provision is competent to do. The doctrinal concern those cases express that an unaccountable, unremovable executive officer undermines the President's constitutional duty to see the laws faithfully executed is answered here differently than a statute could answer it: the Attorney General remains removable. Just not unilaterally by the President, and Congress's three-fifths threshold in Section 5 is a materially higher bar than the ordinary politics of an at-will firing, precisely because law enforcement independence from the officeholder under investigation is the entire point. The same analysis applies without modification to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who is protected by this Article on identical terms.

Objection 2: a Congress controlled by the President's own party could simply decline to ever vote for removal, no matter the cause, insulating an Attorney General who abuses the office.

That is true of every congressional-supermajority removal mechanism, and it is the tradeoff inherent in taking removal away from a single person. The alternative, letting the President remove the Attorney General unilaterally, is the exact problem this Article exists to solve. Section 6's private right of action for Department employees who refuse an unlawful directive, and Section 1(c)'s definition of cause reaching the Attorney General's own compliance with a prohibited communication, give the removal mechanism something concrete to act on even when the underlying misconduct is the kind that is hard to prove through ordinary politics.

Objection 3: a ten-year term will routinely span parts of two or three different presidential terms, forcing Presidents to govern with a Justice Department they did not choose.

That is the design, not a side effect. It is the same logic Public Law 94-503 used for the FBI Director in 1976, and the same logic behind long, staggered terms for the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors: an institution meant to operate independently of short-term political pressure is built with a term length that outlasts the political cycle putting pressure on it. A new President inherits the sitting Attorney General exactly as a new President inherits the sitting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Both are now protected by the identical ten-year term and cause-only removal standard, for the identical reason.

Objection 4: forcibly removing the sitting Attorney General and FBI Director the moment this Article is ratified is itself the kind of politicized purge this Article is designed to prevent.

There is a real difference between removing an official over a specific decision a President dislikes, and a one-time, universally applicable structural reset written into the Constitution itself and ratified by the states through Article V, not ordered by any single President. Every official displaced by this Article’s ratification is displaced by the same rule, regardless of who currently holds the office or which administration appointed them. The Article does not target an individual, it retires an office. Grandfathering the incumbent, the approach this book uses for offices like the Supreme Court, works when the goal is prospective structural reform without disrupting a life-tenured judiciary; it does not fit here, because the entire premise of this Article is that the existing at-will appointment structure has already produced officials whose independence the public has no way to verify. A ten-year term and cause-only removal mean little if the first person to hold them was selected under the very system this Article exists to replace. The transition in Section 7 has an expedited Commission and nomination timeline. A Senate vote with an automatic deemed-confirmation fallback if the Senate stalls. And a hard one-hundred-twenty-day outside deadline is built to make that reset happen quickly and predictably, not slowly enough for the old system’s dynamics to reassert themselves, and not left to any single actor’s discretion.

One further structural consequence follows from everything above: the Attorney General no longer belongs in the Presidential line of succession, and Section 9 removes the office from it. The Presidential Succession Act places the Attorney General seventh in line today on the understanding, true of every other Cabinet officer in that line, that the office is a member of the sitting President’s own administration, and inherits the presidency, if it ever does, as an extension of that administration’s mandate. This Article breaks that premise on purpose: the Attorney General is now chosen by an independent Commission the President does not control, confirmed by a supermajority rather than a party-line vote, and seated for a ten-year term deliberately built to outlast the President who happens to be in office when a vacancy occurs. An officer selected specifically to be independent of, and at times adversarial to, the sitting President is the one official in the traditional line least equipped to extend that President’s democratic mandate in a true emergency. Removing the Attorney General from succession is not a demotion of the office; it is the natural consequence of the independence Sections 2 through 6 already establish.

Objection 5: removing the Attorney General, together with the Office of Humanity's effect on five Cabinet departments elsewhere in this book, narrows the pool of officials available to lead the country in a genuine continuity of government catastrophe, and that risk, however small, outweighs a largely symbolic concern. Continuity of government is a real value, and this Article does not treat it lightly.

It leaves the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and nine other Cabinet rank officers in the statutory line exactly as they stand today: the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security. What this Article removes is a single office, the Attorney General, deliberately redesigned to be the least representative of the sitting administration's political mandate of any officer in that line. A separate provision in Chapter 10, unrelated to this Amendment, removes five more, the Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Veterans Affairs, because their departments' functions transfer to the Office of Humanity, a coordinate branch this book places outside the President's Cabinet and outside the line of succession for the same reason the Chancellor is excluded. Together those two provisions bring the line from eighteen offices to twelve. A succession crisis severe enough to reach that twelfth office is already a crisis in which legitimacy and public confidence matter more than depth of bench, and installing a ten-year appointee selected by a commission, answerable to neither party, and possibly holding office in active tension with the administration that just fell, does more to deepen that legitimacy crisis than to resolve it. Nine other Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretaries, each still chosen through ordinary presidential appointment, remain available before that problem would ever arise.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT