Appointments Clause: The judge in the classified documents case against Trump determined that Special Counsel Smith's appointment was unconstitutional because it circumvented the Appointments Clause. This clause ensures key government officials are vetted by both the executive and legislative branches.
Principal vs. Inferior Officers: The Constitution distinguishes between principal officers, who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and inferior officers, who can be appointed by the President, judiciary, or department heads. The dismissal argues that the Attorney General did not have the authority to appoint a federal officer with the prosecutorial power that Special Counsel Smith wielded.
Usurping Legislative Authority: The judge stated that Smith's position effectively usurped Congress' legislative authority by allowing the executive branch to appoint an official like him without Senate confirmation. The judge concluded that the Attorney General was able to circumvent the statutory scheme and appoint special counsels with the immense power of a U.S. Attorney, a position that requires Senate confirmation.
No legal authority: According to the court, there is no statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution. =========
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Обвинения и обычный человек
Date: 2025-02-25 02:42 am (UTC)К счастью, в США преследование политической оппозиции - не одобряется.
=========
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-did-classified-materials-c-2H9PhIFeTay7ACisGFhMIA#0
Here's why the appointment of the Special Counsel was viewed as a violation:
Appointments Clause: The judge in the classified documents case against Trump determined that Special Counsel Smith's appointment was unconstitutional because it circumvented the Appointments Clause. This clause ensures key government officials are vetted by both the executive and legislative branches.
Principal vs. Inferior Officers: The Constitution distinguishes between principal officers, who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and inferior officers, who can be appointed by the President, judiciary, or department heads. The dismissal argues that the Attorney General did not have the authority to appoint a federal officer with the prosecutorial power that Special Counsel Smith wielded.
Usurping Legislative Authority: The judge stated that Smith's position effectively usurped Congress' legislative authority by allowing the executive branch to appoint an official like him without Senate confirmation. The judge concluded that the Attorney General was able to circumvent the statutory scheme and appoint special counsels with the immense power of a U.S. Attorney, a position that requires Senate confirmation.
No legal authority: According to the court, there is no statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution.
=========