Posted on 02/21/2020 9:20:59 AM PST by Kaslin
The poorly written click-bait headline at the Washington Post “Trump declares himself ‘chief law enforcement officer’” complete with the scare quotes, might create the impression among the woefully ignorant who depend on their “fish wrapper” for news. The headline implies President Trump said something wrong, which begs the question: has anybody under the age of sixty ever read the U.S. Constitution? It’s only about four pages long, written back in the day when people still produced clear and concise documents by hand. And more importantly, shouldn’t “journalists” have a basic understanding of their subject matter if they are going to be allowed to help shape public opinion with their reporting?
The Constitution's Section 1 of Article II includes the President’s specific oath of office in the definition of his duties: ''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Section 3 in Article II adds, “[the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
Are these reporters old enough to remember what Paul Begala said as Bill Clinton was signing an executive order: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” The concept of an executive order is very cool, actually, because of the Constitutional separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Congress passes bills. Presidents sign those bills into law or veto them. Congress may override the veto. The courts rule on whether or not those new laws are unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Indeed. For those who pay attention it is pretty amazing how upset the Democrats are that the President would actually be taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The Left seems to consider this an impeachable offense.
The irony is even greater when one realizes how many of those laws have been passed by a Democrat Congress. How dare the President enforce them!!
Bagpipes Barr thinks the law belongs to him, personally. And he will tell the President what is what. It’s “my job.”
Written by a future Chief Justice
The District Attorney might refuse to obey the President’s order; and if he did refuse, the prosecution, while he remained in office, would still go on; because the President himself could give no order to the court or to the clerk to make any particular entry. He could only act through his subordinate officer, the District Attorney, who is responsible to him and who holds his office at his pleasure.
Cornell law is NEVER a place I go for the TRUTH. ESPECIALLY anything to do with the constitution.
Biased, wrong, agenda driven. Cornell? Who knew? /s
What has Cornell got to do with it?
They have a searchable database that provides a lot of info.
This is not their opinion. This is written by an Attorney General. Future Chief Justice.
And he is correct.
btw, your post is so idiotic it is hard for me to take it seriously..but
You can find that quote in many different BOOKS. I assure you that man knows more about the Constitution than you do.
The president is the AGs boss and since DJT is president, need I say more?
A District Attorney and an Attorney General aren’t the same..
Not really the point.
“
Jackson wanted to interfere with a Prosecution. Tanney said he can’t. Only recourse is remove said person.
“”Not really the point.””
You’re ok with misrepresenting/mixing up officials? Federal and State. One the president does have sole authority - the other only the state does. I prefer accuracy in articles regardless of impact on the story.
“”Jackson wanted to interfere with a Prosecution. Tanney said he can’t. Only recourse is remove said person.””
Did you post to the wrong thread? Have no idea what you’re talking about!
Sigh....i dont feel like explaining.
Trump can’t interfere with Stone just like Jackson couldn’t interfere over the Jewels of the Princess Orange...but the Chief Top Law Enforcement person CAN..and that isn’t Trump
you either get it or you dont
Pay attention to the heading that discusses this
Isn’t that a liberal’s way of getting out of answering a question? I guess everyone isn’t as well read as you must be and no thanks - I don’t need any explanation from you. You couldn’t do so graciously and not the first time so go on your merry way feeling superior!
“”Jewels of the Princess Orange”” means squat!
No, it means I am sports betting and don’t care to spend the time to discuss.
I provided a link
Research it or dont
Dont care
I understand! You’ve been busy posting nearly 40 times today but can’t/won’t take time or don’t care to explain what you meant by a simple post. Classic behavior of someone avoiding questions. That’s ok...Sports betting? Got it now!
———Opinions are just that and the one you like carries no force of law, so give it up already Chick.
The Attorney General who became a Supreme Court Justice said he can’t intervene.
Do you not understand that he can’t. He has to go through others. That isn’t an opinion.
HE CANT DO IT
But go ahead and make up stories in your head that the PResident can issue orders to Prosecutors to direct a case.
and btw, you can actually try to form an opinion based on case law instead of willy nilly just believing whatever you want to make up,
start here for cases
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2018/12/1-Green-Roiphe-1-75.pdf
If Trump tries to direct a case against the wishes of those involved like Jackson wanted to in The Jewels of Princess Orange..he is going to get shut down.
His only recourse is to fire the person.
Why not just read he Constitution, it is pretty plain English. No need for manipulative interpretations of plain English, just accept what it clearly says.
I suppose you might say that The President will likely not pin on a badge and make an arrest but I am pretty sure he can get it done anyway. He can direct that an investigation be made and charges brought in spite of what you think and I dare say that that has happened many times at least under Democratic Presidents.
As a final power Martial Law would certainly let him arrest at will. For president see the entire Lincoln Presidency.
Executive Order 9066
Despite the growing public pressure to act, government officials were uneasy about incarcerating Japanese Americans, especially those who were citizens, without a clear reason. Neither Attorney General Francis Biddle nor Secretary of War Henry Stimson believed the removal would be wise or even legal. Military leaders, however, as high up as Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, insisted that this policy was absolutely necessary to ensure public safety on the Pacific Coast. Between the public demand for action and pressure from the military, Biddle buckled and told Stimson he would not object to a wholesale removal of Japanese Americans from the region. Stimson advised Roosevelt accordingly, and on February 19, 1942, the President signed Executive Order 9066, which directed the War Department to create “military areas” that anyone could be excluded from for essentially any reason.You should be tired now of all the challenges yo have received on you opinion but feel free to muddle on, in the end you have an opinion that does not matter in the least and has no effect of law.
The Supreme Court says a lot of things that are not true, can't you understand that? Who would arrest the President if he ordered the AG to make an arrest? In fact who would or should have the power to arrest a corrupt attorney General? According to you no one they are above the law and a President is below it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.