In The News

President Trump Can Be Neither Indicted Nor Tried for Firing Comey

“Nonjusticiable” – The word of the day. (June 3, 2018)

Definition of Justiciability: “Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is “nonjusticiable”, a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.” (See Legal Information Institute, Wex Legal Dictionary.)

The definition contains an essential term of art, i.e., “political question doctrine.” Why is that term of art essential?

Because it helps to clarify that President Trump can neither be indicted nor tried for using the Executive powers vested in him by the U.S. Constitution and as ruled on by our Supreme Court. (U.S. Constitution, Art. II; Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 US 137, 165-6; Baker v. Carr (1962) 369 US 186, 210, 217.)

How to identify political question doctrine: “Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department… .” (Baker, supra, at 217.) Let’s apply that law to the firing of Mr. Comey.

It is noted that James Comey served at the will of the President and the President had the constitutional power to fire Mr. Comey at any time. Indeed, Mr. Comey publicly acknowledged and agreed that was a condition of his employment. That condition arises from the U.S. Constitution vesting such power in the Chief Executive as related to the employment of Mr. Comey. And, ergo, that is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the [subject] issue to a coordinate political department”, i.e., to the Chief Executive. The firing of Mr. Comey was/is a political matter. It is a nonjusticiable matter. In simple words, a court of law has no authority to hear the matter.

Furthermore, Congress lacks the power to change the powers that the US. Constitution vests in the Chief Executive of the United States. The Supreme Court, through its power of judicial review, can rule that such a change is unconstitutional because it is repugnant to the constitution. (Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 US 137, 179.)

John Lucas

Share
Published by
John Lucas
Tags: James Comey

Recent Posts

GOP Effort To Strip Illegal Immigrants Of Taxpayer-Funded Benefits Fails In Senate

Senate Democrats moved to block Republican efforts Monday evening to strip illegal immigrants of taxpayer-funded…

5 hours ago

Shockingly Small Portion Of Democrats Are Proud To Be American, Poll Shows

Fewer Democrats are “extremely” or “very” proud to be American than at any point in…

5 hours ago

Trump Terminates US Sanctions On Syria

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday to terminate U.S. sanctions against Syria in…

5 hours ago

Economist Art Laffer Breaks Down Why Tariffs Aren’t Inflationary

Economist Art Laffer explained on Fox Business Monday that tariffs do not drive inflation and…

5 hours ago

Zohran Mamdani’s policies would be an economic disaster

Zohran Mamdani, a New York State Assemblymember and presumptive Democratic nominee for Mayor of New…

5 hours ago

Canada Bends Knee On Key Tax After Trump Pulls Plug On Trade Talks

Canada announced Sunday that it is rescinding its digital services tax (DST) in an attempt…

5 hours ago