1. President Trump had the constitutional power to declassify any record he wanted, per Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Navy v. Egan.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) August 18, 2022
2. And he had the sole statutory authority to determine what was presidential v. personal record, per 2012 DC District Court ruling.
Game over. pic.twitter.com/qyJiS6dp1Z
🚨
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) August 18, 2022
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute https://t.co/hXkXGKeQ5G via @JustTheNews
22 comments:
Of course Trump has the authority. And he is preparing a lawsuit against the doj for violating his 4th amendment rights.
Still curious why our big brave host is not man enough to post this link!!!!! A must read for every male who thinks banning abortions is a wise choice!!!!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/opinion/abortion-pregnancy-child-roe.html
Good luck with that.
His strategy is to use the 4th amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In a 2002 report on leaks of classified information, Attorney General John Ashcroft cited Egan in support of the proposition that “The President has the power under the Constitution to protect national security secrets from unauthorized disclosure. This extends to defining what information constitutes a national security secret and to determining who may have access to that secret.” These statements are true except for the implication that such authority is exclusively the province of the executive. The Attorney General conspicuously neglected to note the qualification in Egan which stated “Unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise….”
Recently, observed Fisher, some courts have presented a more nuanced reading of Egan. In proceedings such as Al-Haramain and Horn v. Huddle, courts have rebuffed executive arguments for complete deference in cases where Congress has legislated its intent into statute.
Fundamentally, Fisher concludes, “Nothing in Egan recognizes a plenary or exclusive power on the part of the President over classified information.” See “Judicial Interpretations of Egan“ by Louis Fisher, Law Library of Congress, November 13, 2009.
You would have been a terrible lawyer..
Your source exclude
unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise.
It's in the decision.
You should be more careful.
Department of the Navy v. Egan, the 1988 Supreme Court case that established security clearance determinations as an exclusive function of the Executive, included often overlooked language: “unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise…”
Trump kool-aid drinkers think:
The documents were declassified because Trump says they were, and he is still president because he says he is.
You should take it down because it is not the coldheartedtruth.
Department of the Navy v. Egan, the 1988 Supreme Court case that established security clearance determinations as an exclusive function of the Executive, included often overlooked language: “unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise…”
Roger...
Tell me which laws Congress passed since 1988 that restricted Presidential classification authority? Because as of 1988 the issue at hand was decided in favor of plenary Presidential powers as it pertains to classifications. IF there was specific limitations then those would have been listed.
Oh and which President signed these restrictions on POTUS into law? Because Congress can only "provide" something when it becomes a law. They have no Congressional authority to sign actions outside of the law.
So which law are you referring to?
Please tell us. I am sure those articles all pointed to those specific laws... right?
Otherwise shut the fuck up!
Oh...
and ultimately it won't be up to Garland or even a jury to decide. This dispute (if Biden and Garland want to make it) will end up back in the USSC. That is a given. How do you thing the USSC will see this?
Will they stand by the meat of the ruling or do you suppose they will be swayed by the "often overlooked" passages that the left is demanding suggests that the actual ruling means the opposite of what it said?
I would suggest you have at least 6 Justices (maybe more) who will side with the Presidential authority on this one.
You think Biden and Garland would want to bring charges against a former President and have the courts throw out the charges as being unconstitutional? Especially considering the precedent seems so obvious?
They will look like even bigger idiots than they already do!
From my link
Egan which stated "Unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise
For the genius
I’m just a bill…Schoolhouse Rock.
Okay Roger...
You repeated yourself again.
Good for you.
Now if your sources are so smart... why are they not providing the specific Congressional law that deals with Presidential authority on classification. Obviously there was nothing on the books in 1988 that prevented the courts from the ruling in favor of Presidential authority.
Problem for you Roger.
Your sources are not citing laws, because such laws do not exist.
Check and Mate!
Now go sing obladi oblada with the 5th Beatle while you wait for lunch to be provided for you in the cafeteria!
Done with you.
Unless of course you answer the question.
Moreover...
The ruling literally says that the inherent authority of the President on classification comes from the constitution and his role as chief executive. That authority does not come from any law.
While it might leave open the idea of a laws being written and signed into law that restrict this Presidential authority... the assumption is absent specific laws that the Constitution grants that authority to the President.
And laws specific about "handling of Classified documents" would not have any bearing on that constitutional authority to make classification decisions.
It literally states:
THis is a quote from the ruling:
" His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant"
Oblige Ogallala
I don't think that Garland will file charges unless he is absolutely certain.
One of the problems for Trump is that he is having trouble finding lawyers who want to defend him. Defense attorneys have a difficult task anything because most of the time they know what their client is guilty..
If he files charges, I don't believe that he will convince jurors to have a reasonable doubt.
Plus Georgia is his biggest challenge
Roger...
He had his attorney attend the latest hearing on the release of the affidavit. He already has a full legal team. He may or may not be looking for more, but that does not mean he has no legal team defending him.
Sorry Roger...
But you just repeated yourself five times in five different comments. You do not win arguments by repeating yourself again and again and again. You need to actually address the questions being posed to you?
So far, I have seen the text of the ruling that states explicitly that the President is provided classification powers from the Constitution and does not get it from Congressional grant. I repeated that text for you.
If there is some "little known or overlooked text" that states differently then that is a pretty silly ruling. To rule in favor of Presidential authority. Specifically state that it comes from the Constitution and doesn't require Congressional approval. BUt then slide the opposite logic into something that is "overlooked".
This seems pretty clear to me. Congress would have to pass a law that is specific to restricting the ability of POTUS to classify and declassify. Short of that law, the main text of this ruling is the ruling precedent.
Your sources seem to love this little "overlooked phrase" but don't appear to have tangibly come up with anything specific (lawwise) that would hold any precedent. Even if they are being honest (and are right) about that passage, it would be completely irrelevant without an actual law regarding Presidential authority to back up the assertion.
Btw... this entire thing got started by one of Gorsuch law clerks. You don't think Gorsuch has the same beliefs? And if Gorsuch believes it then so does Kavanaugh, Barret, Alito... and most certainly Thomas. I would bet that Roberts does as well.
Another question that has been left unanswered.
It has been said that Garland spent weeks making a determination but did not bother to ask the Office of Legal Counsel (who generally are asked the tough legal or constitutional questions). If they believed that the OLC would provide them with an opinion in favor of the raid it would have bolstered their argument.
The reasoning according to most everyone is that the OLC would have told Garland that raiding Trump's residence would be a very very bad legal idea... and Garland did not want to have to explain why he ignored that advice.
Better to just not ask, then to ask and get the wrong answer.
What is truly scary of your naïveté Scotty is that you argue that the POTUS can declassify anything he wants with impugintity. taking that to its logical conclusion, if Biden declassified the launch codes carried in the football for war, that would in your opinion not only be legal, but okay!!!!!!!!! What about the names of deep sources through out the world or secrets to our weapons vulnerabilities that would help Russia neutralize them......IOW's not only a check mate, but an amazing desperation on your part to make Trump GOD!!!!!!!! Sad to the extreme
I don't argue this Denny...
The 2012 USSC decision does.
Argue with them.
I hope and seriously doubt that geriatric, demented fool has the launch codes anywhere near….
Post a Comment