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

Cost Of Regulatory Burdens Reached Staggering Levels In 2024, Report Says

Federal regulations added an estimated total cost of a whopping $2.155 trillion for Americans in…

7 hours ago

Business Owners Prefer A GED To A Woke Harvard Degree

Harvard once stood as the pinnacle of American academia, a revered institution that shaped presidents,…

7 hours ago

Most Dem-Voting Federal Bureaucrats Say They Would Disobey ‘Legal’ Orders From Trump, Poll Shows

A new poll found that a majority of federal employees who previously voted Democrat are…

7 hours ago

Obama-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump From Denying Funds To Sanctuary Cities

An Obama-appointed judge blocked the Trump administration from denying federal funds to jurisdictions that refuse…

8 hours ago

Rep. Green Asks Trump DOJ To Review Firearm Licenses ‘Unjustly’ Revoked Under Biden

Republican Tennessee Rep. Mark Green urged Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday to review…

8 hours ago

If Not Racism or Ideaology, What Will Keep Us Apart?

I watched an HBO/MAX documentary on the Boston Celtics, and an entire episode centered on…

8 hours ago