Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker (Photo by Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)

George T. Conway, Filipino American attorney and husband of White House Special Advisor Kellyanne Conway, is at it again. Just last week he argued that Donald Dump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional and now he has co-authored (with fellow attorney Neal K. Katyal) another New York Times op-ed arguing that Orange Hitler’s latest actions are also unconstitutional.

This time, it concerns the President’s appointment of Trump brown-noser Matthew Whitaker as the acting Attorney General after the abrupt firing of Ernie Keebler Elf Jeff Sessions. Conway argues this action is unconstitutional because a “principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate”:

It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.

Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground.

Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

To read the full article, click here. And if you want to see a picture of where George Conway will be sleeping tonight, here you go: