Submitted by Trey Rusk
Rep
Harriet Hageman has significant experience in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, her expertise is cases involving constitutional implications:
Rep
Harriet Hageman: Article 2 of the Constitution states that "the
executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." In other words, it is the President that defines the executive
branch. When you read this language, it says that no court may take
over that role. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of
an official of the executive office of the President—the people who work
in the Executive Office. I think that what your amendment does is a
violation of separation of powers and is a violation of Article 2 of the
Constitution.
Rep
Darrel Issa: It's always good when a constitutional specialist comes
in—it helps us all. So, what you're saying is that the bill codifies
Article 2, for purposes of the court being reminded and instructed of
their limitations, and the amendment would undo that?
Rep
Harriet Hageman: That's exactly right, because then it would imply that
a federal court could, in fact, define or limit the scope of the duties
of those individuals who work within the Executive Office of the
President. That is not a federal court's role. That is for, under
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that power is vested in a
President of the United States of America.
Rep
Darrel Issa: In your understanding, is that with the current President
or the last one or the next one, if we don't do something like this,
realistically, the Chief Executive, well, President, would continue to
have to answer a myriad of claims in up to— not just 50 states, but
multiple places in 50 states—and if that tactic was used even more so
than it may have been used in the past, that you would have a President
having to use non-official funds to answer a series of cases alleged not
to be that way. Is that true?
Rep
Harriet Hageman: That's the way that I read this, and I think that it's
very clear—especially starting in 2017, when President Trump was sworn
in the first time—that the courts have been used for nefarious purposes
on a variety of issues. In fact, yesterday we had a hearing in our
constitutional subcommittee about lawfare, and how lawfare had been
weaponized against President Trump both while he was President as well
as after his presidency. So, again, I guess that I'm very skeptical of
the idea that people are not willing to use lawfare to go after a
current or former President. We've seen this over the last nine years in
many different instances. But the President is the one who gets to
define the limit and scope of the duties of the personnel within his
office—that is very clear from Article 2 of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment