No. of Recommendations: 4
albaby1: And yet all the parade of horribles we've been discussing are discussing things that are illegal for the President to do. ... The President is allowed to do the lawful parts of his job (says the majority) regardless of whether Congress or the courts think that he's doing that lawful thing with an unlawful motivation, because the Constitution assigns all of the choice to the President and not the Congress or the Courts.
Yeah, no.
Here's the problem when the high court is in the pocket of a tyrant: In USCA11 Case 23-12958 Meadows argued that the Take Care Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II § 3, "empowers the President with broad authority to 'ensure that federal voting laws are enforced.' But he concedes that the President has no 'direct control' over the individuals -- members of Congress and state officials -- who conduct federal elections. And tellingly, he cites no legal authority for the proposition that the President's power extends to 'assess[ing] the conduct of state officials.' We are aware of no authority suggesting that the Take Care clause empowers federal executive interference with state election procedures based solely on the federal executive's own initiative and not in relation to another branch's constitutionally authorized act."
Well, umm, wait a second, writes John Roberts in Trump v. United States, I don't know about that: "The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. In particular, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince certain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump. After Trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his coconspirators allegedly developed and effectuated a plan to submit fraudulent slates of Presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial."
Sorry, Roberts has crowned us a King.
