Because the Constitution contemplates various appointers, and because the appointer, under the discretionary theory, may decide how and when her appointments will vest, each appointer may choose her own method of appointment.
The general rule of appointer discretion is subject to its own set of constraints.
Other times, the return was symbolic, meant to show respect to the appointer.
244) A commission might declare that it does "hereby appoint" the named individuals to a particular office (245) or that the appointer "do[es] constitute" (246) some person an officer.
One might well suppose that while the Constitution adopts a default rule of appointer discretion, Congress nevertheless may dictate, via legislation, the methods and timing of appointments.
To the contrary, they suggest that the Constitution grants the appointer considerable flexibility.
Maybe the Constitution permits variation in appointment methods, ceding appointers significant discretion in how and when they appoint.
In this way, the Constitution contemplates multiple appointers, each of whom may choose to appoint in multiple ways.
The first principle requires that elected officials be included among the appointers of members to the nominating commission.
A more persuasive and substantively relevant reason to include elected officials among the appointers of members to the nominating commission is that elected public officials, theoretically, are accountable to the public.
Aside from law school deans and/or bar association leaders (categories themselves which are not uncontroversial), consensus regarding non-elected appointers is hard to achieve.
Finally, drafting constitutional language becomes extremely challenging in the arena of non-elected appointers.
Instead, there must be an effort to have more appointers be Philadelphians, to ensure a role for minorities in appointing members to and serving on the nominating commission, and to minimize the role of government officials from outside the City.