Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
Garland's unconstitutional lawlessness have no bounds. But again, Democrats believe that only they are above our laws.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Senator McConnel for keeping this lawless dolt off the highest court of the land. Regardless of McConnels frailities or mistakes made kowtowing to Democrats, for this he is singularly a hero.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional​

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543. This latter statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543, explicitly allows the appointment by the Attorney General of a Special Counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney but not to replace him. Comparison of the DOJ's organic statute with the organic statutes of at least four other Cabinet Departments illustrates the kind of clear laws by which Congress exercises its power "to by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, *** in the Heads of Departments."

Appointments under these regulations, such as the May 17, 2017 appointment of Robert S. Mueller to investigate the Trump campaign, were patently unlawful, for reasons set forth in great detail in: Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, Why Robert Mueller's Appointment is Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame Law Review 87 (2019). The same argument renders the appointment of private citizen Jack Smith to prosecute Donald Trump right now unconstitutional. Private citizen Jack Smith, under the regulation, has all of the power of a U.S. Attorney, and also nationwide jurisdiction, but he was never nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds, in the way that U.S. Attorneys are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices. This is blatantly unconstitutional. It is imperative that the Supreme Court rule on this question right now. I have co-written and co-signed an amicus brief with former Attorney General Ed Meese and Professor Gary Lawson, which was filed in the Supreme Court today in United States v. Trump, which is a petition for certiorari before judgment filed by private citizen Jack Smith purporting to speak for the government of the United States, and which is currently before the Supreme Court, and which makes the argument that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.

reason.com

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of
reason.com reason.com
 
Truth Detector said:
Garland's unconstitutional lawlessness have no bounds. But again, Democrats believe that only they are above our laws.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Senator McConnel for keeping this lawless dolt off the highest court of the land. Regardless of McConnels frailities or mistakes made kowtowing to Democrats, for this he is singularly a hero.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional​

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543. This latter statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543, explicitly allows the appointment by the Attorney General of a Special Counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney but not to replace him. Comparison of the DOJ's organic statute with the organic statutes of at least four other Cabinet Departments illustrates the kind of clear laws by which Congress exercises its power "to by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, *** in the Heads of Departments."

Appointments under these regulations, such as the May 17, 2017 appointment of Robert S. Mueller to investigate the Trump campaign, were patently unlawful, for reasons set forth in great detail in: Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, Why Robert Mueller's Appointment is Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame Law Review 87 (2019). The same argument renders the appointment of private citizen Jack Smith to prosecute Donald Trump right now unconstitutional. Private citizen Jack Smith, under the regulation, has all of the power of a U.S. Attorney, and also nationwide jurisdiction, but he was never nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds, in the way that U.S. Attorneys are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices. This is blatantly unconstitutional. It is imperative that the Supreme Court rule on this question right now. I have co-written and co-signed an amicus brief with former Attorney General Ed Meese and Professor Gary Lawson, which was filed in the Supreme Court today in United States v. Trump, which is a petition for certiorari before judgment filed by private citizen Jack Smith purporting to speak for the government of the United States, and which is currently before the Supreme Court, and which makes the argument that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.

reason.com

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of
reason.com reason.com
Click to expand...
Jack Smith is not a legal prosecutor. Hopefully his illegal persecution (Not a typo) of Trump will be thrown out.
 
Truth Detector said:
Garland's unconstitutional lawlessness have no bounds. But again, Democrats believe that only they are above our laws.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Senator McConnel for keeping this lawless dolt off the highest court of the land. Regardless of McConnels frailities or mistakes made kowtowing to Democrats, for this he is singularly a hero.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional​

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of the 93 U.S. Attorneys but with nationwide jurisdiction. This makes Jack Smith more powerful than any of the 93 U.S. Attorneys even though they have been Senate-confirmed to their particular offices, and Jack Smith has not been Senate confirmed for the particular office, which he now claims to hold. A close examination of the Justice Department's (DOJ's) organic statute makes it clear that, unlike at least four other Heads of Cabinet Departments, the Head of the Justice Department has not "in, the words of the Appointments Clause, been "by Law" *** vested" with the power to appoint inferior officers like Jack Smith who have more power than any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. This is made clear by an examination of the DOJ's organic statute, 28 U.S. C. Sections 509, 510, 515-519, 533, and, most importantly, Section 543. This latter statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 543, explicitly allows the appointment by the Attorney General of a Special Counsel to assist a U.S. Attorney but not to replace him. Comparison of the DOJ's organic statute with the organic statutes of at least four other Cabinet Departments illustrates the kind of clear laws by which Congress exercises its power "to by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, *** in the Heads of Departments."

Appointments under these regulations, such as the May 17, 2017 appointment of Robert S. Mueller to investigate the Trump campaign, were patently unlawful, for reasons set forth in great detail in: Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, Why Robert Mueller's Appointment is Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame Law Review 87 (2019). The same argument renders the appointment of private citizen Jack Smith to prosecute Donald Trump right now unconstitutional. Private citizen Jack Smith, under the regulation, has all of the power of a U.S. Attorney, and also nationwide jurisdiction, but he was never nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for the particular office of Special Counsel, which he now holds, in the way that U.S. Attorneys are nominated and confirmed for their particular offices. This is blatantly unconstitutional. It is imperative that the Supreme Court rule on this question right now. I have co-written and co-signed an amicus brief with former Attorney General Ed Meese and Professor Gary Lawson, which was filed in the Supreme Court today in United States v. Trump, which is a petition for certiorari before judgment filed by private citizen Jack Smith purporting to speak for the government of the United States, and which is currently before the Supreme Court, and which makes the argument that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.

reason.com

Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional

On November 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to appoint private citizen Jack L. Smith to be a Special Counsel with the power of one of
reason.com reason.com
Click to expand...
STEVEN CALABRESI: Your source. Chairman of the Federalist Society. The society that gave trump his SCOTUS picks. That's all anyone needs to know.

Nazi Flag.jpg
 
LurchAddams said:
STEVEN CALABRESI: Your source. Chairman of the Federalist Society. The society that gave trump his SCOTUS picks. That's all anyone needs to know.
Click to expand...

Another pointless and stupid post.

pointless
adjective
point·less | \ ˈpȯint-ləs \

1: devoid of meaning : SENSELESS

a pointless remark

2: devoid of effectiveness : FLAT

pointless attempts to be funny
 
Truth Detector said:
Another pointless and stupid post.
Click to expand...
No, the fact, the guy is co chair of the Federalist Society, what did you think an opinion piece by a co chair of the Federalist Society was going to conclude? Plus your opinion piece is six months old, the claim has already been in and out of court

Under what is considered extraordinary circumstances the AG can appoint a special prosecutor outside of the DOJ (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/attorney-generals-special-counsel-regulations/), in fact, the appointment is done as such to avoid collusion between the AG and the prosecutor. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in the same manner to avoid rumors of interference, although he also knew Mueller was incompetent and he didn’t need to interfere
 
archives said:
No, the fact, the guy is co chair of the Federalist Society, what did you think an opinion piece by a co chair of the Federalist Society was going to conclude? Plus your opinion piece is six months old, the claim has already been in and out of court

Under what is considered extraordinary circumstances the AG can appoint a special prosecutor outside of the DOJ (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/attorney-generals-special-counsel-regulations/), in fact, the appointment is done as such to avoid collusion between the AG and the prosecutor. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in the same manner to avoid rumors of interference, although he also knew Mueller was incompetent and he didn’t need to interfere
Click to expand...

You really are an uneducated dunce. So instead of dealing with the facts in the article, you're going to cover your eyes because of the source.

You're the definition of ignorance. Below is the code and it clearly states that they must be an EMPLOYEE which Jack Smith is not, was not.

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.​

  • § 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
    (a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

    (b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

5 U.S. Code § 7511 - Definitions; application

(a)For the purpose of this subchapter—
(1)“employee” means—
(A) an individual in the competitive service—
(i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment; or
(ii) who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(B) a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions—
(i) in an Executive agency; or
(ii) in the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission; and
(C) an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible)—
(i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service; or
(ii) who has completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less;​

 
LurchAddams said:
Oooh! Look who's white-knighting for his boyfriend @ExpressLane ! You guys should get a room!
Click to expand...

Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid.

What Are Internet Trolls?
An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top