Dear Editor: 

Based on my reading of the U.S. Constitution, Elon Musk’s appointment as a U.S. Government official and thus his actions in that capacity are squarely at odds with that founding document—our country’s supreme law. Under broad constitutional principles, authority comes from the consent of the governed, and only officials selected in accordance with the Constitution may exercise power in the name of the United States.    

More specifically, the Supreme Court has decided that individuals who exercise “significant authority” on behalf of the United States must be appointed in accordance with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which is found in Article II. According to the Constitution, people who are appointed by the president and who report directly to the president are “Principal Officers.” Musk would appear to fall into that category. And Principal Officers must be appointed with the advice and consent of the US Senate. 

Musk has not been subject to such Congressional scrutiny. So, based on constitutional principles, he is not eligible to exercise the power the President appears to have granted to him. Thus, it is up to members of Congress to exercise that body’s constitutional authority and halt Musk’s violation of our laws. Anything short of such action is a dereliction of duty.  

Interestingly, the argument that Musk’s appointment and authority are inconsistent with the Appointments Clause appears to be supported by the judge’s dismissal of the classified documents case against President Trump. The main basis for the judge’s otherwise dubious dismissal of the case was that special counsel Jack Smith was an officer of the United States who had not been constitutionally appointed. The judge went on to note that “the Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation powers.” 

So, Congress there is the precedent for action. Do your duty!   

Walter Voskian  

Bremen