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

Kansas Legislature Passes Bill Banning Chinese Land Purchases Near Military Sites After DCNF Investigation

The Kansas legislature passed a bill Tuesday that will prevent companies from China or other…

1 hour ago

Army, Marines Barreling Toward One Of The Deadliest And Costliest Years For Aviation Accidents

Incidents of the costliest and most deadly aviation accidents among Army and Marine Corps surged…

1 hour ago

Biden Admin Justifies Tax Hike Based On Racial Criteria

The Biden administration’s analysis of its revenue proposals for fiscal year 2025 argues targeted tax…

1 hour ago

Most Americans Support Using The Military To Conduct Mass Deportations Of Illegal Immigrants

Poll after poll is indicating that Americans are increasingly adopting hardline positions on border enforcement,…

1 hour ago

Ukraine Retreats From Frontline Positions As Kyiv Waits For Key US Aid

Ukraine’s top commander said on Sunday that the military had to retreat from positions on…

2 hours ago

Fani Willis No-Shows Debate To Host ‘Self Care Fair’ Amid Legal, Ethical Scrutiny

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opted to skip her first debate Sunday ahead of…

2 hours ago