Apparently, neither Edwin M. Yoder Jr. {op-ed, Jan. 26} nor two of three judges on the U.S. court of appeals have actually read the Constitution lately -- or they would not have come to the conclusion that the special prosecutor law is unconstitutional. I refer to Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

". . . and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint 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, and which shall be established by law. 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." (Emphasis added.)

This language explicitly gives Congress the authority to provide for independent counsels appointed by the judicial branch rather than the executive. There is, therefore, no need for legal gymnastics: the law is both valid and useful, and we ought to keep it. DAVID M. STEARMAN Wheaton

I'd appreciate The Post's examining in some depth the arguments regarding the constitutionality of special prosecutors. Way down in the stories run since the appeals court's decision, The Post has given some inkling of these arguments, but nothing truly substantive.

For example, Edwin M. Yoder Jr. writes, "Article II of the Constitution plainly requires that all who perform significant executive duties be appointed by the president and accountable to him." That's not plain at all. In fact, in the midst of laying out the president's powers and responsibilities in Article II, the Constitution states: ". . . 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." This seems clear. What are the arguments against it?

I'm not asking The Post to try the case, but I'd appreciate its citing the appropriate provisions, precedents and rulings. We just celebrated the bicentennial of the Constitution. The Post should educate us. DAVID W. ANGEVINE Washington