.
See: “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II)
With regard to TRUMP V. UNITED STATES, Mr. Wallison goes through a long-winded recount of the oral arguments before the S.C, which was limited to the following question:
"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE
Mr. Wallison finally concludes,
The error of his conclusion however is found earlier in his rambling.
The truth of the matter is, our Founders addressed this very question when creating a special and unique due process procedure for a President who might commit "... political crimes, or offenses against the state...".
In fact, our founders concluded our ordinary judicial system was an improper venue to judge such matters, e.g. .in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton writes:
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives.. .
. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."
And under our Constitution's due process procedure to deal with a President who is charged with acts violating his public trust, Trump was found "not guilty" by the SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE. And so, the D.C. Indictment of Trump is defective for lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction because Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 commands:
Trump was acquitted and is thus not ". . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment . . . " under our ordinary judicial system.
So, as it turns out the historical evidence confirms the absurdity of the question, “ . . . who should decide whether the President’s acts are private or official . . . “
As concluded by Hamilton “ . . . the Supreme Court [our ordinary judicial system] would have been an improper substitute for the Senate..."
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
See: “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II)
With regard to TRUMP V. UNITED STATES, Mr. Wallison goes through a long-winded recount of the oral arguments before the S.C, which was limited to the following question:
"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE
Mr. Wallison finally concludes,
The error of his conclusion however is found earlier in his rambling.
The truth of the matter is, our Founders addressed this very question when creating a special and unique due process procedure for a President who might commit "... political crimes, or offenses against the state...".
In fact, our founders concluded our ordinary judicial system was an improper venue to judge such matters, e.g. .in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton writes:
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives.. .
. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."
And under our Constitution's due process procedure to deal with a President who is charged with acts violating his public trust, Trump was found "not guilty" by the SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE. And so, the D.C. Indictment of Trump is defective for lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction because Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 commands:
Trump was acquitted and is thus not ". . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment . . . " under our ordinary judicial system.
So, as it turns out the historical evidence confirms the absurdity of the question, “ . . . who should decide whether the President’s acts are private or official . . . “
As concluded by Hamilton “ . . . the Supreme Court [our ordinary judicial system] would have been an improper substitute for the Senate..."
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
