MUST-SEE: Jamie Raskin drops WORST NEWS on Trump

Class with Jamie Raskin
30 Apr 202441:59

Summary

TLDRIn this episode of 'Class with Jamie Rasin,' Congressman Jamie Rasin and co-host Brian Teller Cohen delve into the constitutional debate surrounding presidential immunity, particularly in the case of Donald Trump. They refute the claim that a president, as commander-in-chief, has absolute immunity and the power to act without legal consequences. Rasin emphasizes the importance of the Constitution's structure, where Congress holds the primary law-making power, and the president's duty is to ensure laws are faithfully executed. The discussion highlights the Supreme Court's role in reviewing presidential actions for constitutionality and the potential dangers of exempting a president from criminal prosecution. Rasin also touches on the historical precedent that former presidents can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office. The conversation is part of Democracy Summer, an initiative to educate and engage young people in democratic processes and campaigns.

Takeaways

  • 📜 The Supreme Court is currently considering the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump, which is a case of first impression due to the unprecedented nature of his actions.
  • 🛡️ The Constitution does not grant the president absolute immunity or the power to do whatever they want, contrary to the claims made by some right-wing factions.
  • 🎓 The president's title as 'commander-in-chief' is often misinterpreted; it refers to the president's role over the Army and Navy during times of conflict, not an all-encompassing authority.
  • ⚖️ The structure of the U.S. Constitution is designed to prevent monarchical power, with Congress holding significant law-making authority, and the president's role is to ensure laws are faithfully executed.
  • 🚫 The idea that a president could violate laws and then be exempt from federal criminal laws is a paradox and goes against the principles of the Constitution.
  • 🚨 Donald Trump's actions, particularly around January 6th, were an assault on the constitutional provisions governing succession in office, aiming to undermine the electoral process.
  • 🤔 The claim that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts is a novel argument that has no precedent in U.S. history and is considered dangerous by legal scholars.
  • 👮‍♂️ The rule of law is fundamental to a democratic society, and it applies to everyone, including the president, who is not above the law and can be subject to impeachment, conviction, and prosecution.
  • 🏛️ The Supreme Court's decision to review Trump's claim of immunity and the subsequent delay could potentially have significant implications for the rule of law and the timing of Trump's trial.
  • 🤝 Democracy Summer is an initiative to educate and engage young people in democratic politics, involving seminars and practical campaign work to foster the next generation of political leaders.
  • 🚀 The upcoming episode of 'Class with Jamie Raskin' will discuss the Emoluments Clause, addressing claims that presidents can accept payments from foreign governments without consequence.

Q & A

  • What is the main topic of discussion in the provided transcript?

    -The main topic of discussion is the constitutionality and implications of presidential immunity, particularly in the context of Donald Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

  • What is the fallacy that Congressman Jamie Rasin aims to debunk in the episode?

    -Congressman Jamie Rasin aims to debunk the fallacy that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the power to do whatever he wants and is absolutely immune from any legal consequences for criminal actions.

  • What is the significance of the Supreme Court considering the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump?

    -The significance is that it presents a case of first impression, meaning no other president has acted in such a manner to necessitate a legal precedent. The outcome could set a precedent for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, and the potential for a president to be above the law.

  • What is the correct interpretation of the president's title as 'commander-in-chief' according to the Constitution?

    -The president is not the commander-in-chief of the nation as a whole. Rather, the title refers to the president being the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy during times of actual conflict and of the militias when they are called into actual service, as stated in Article Two of the Constitution.

  • What is the role of the president under Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution?

    -The president's role under Article 2, Section 3 is to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' which means implementing the laws of Congress, not violating or departing from them.

  • What is the argument made by Trump's lawyers regarding the president's immunity from criminal prosecution?

    -Trump's lawyers argue that the president is categorically immune from any criminal prosecution, asserting that official acts undertaken by the president while in office cannot be subject to criminal prosecution, even after leaving office.

  • What is the historical precedent regarding the prosecution of former U.S. presidents?

    -Historically, it has been assumed that former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for offenses committed while in office. Examples include Richard Nixon, who was pardoned before prosecution could occur, and Bill Clinton, who entered into a plea bargain to avoid criminal prosecution.

  • What is the potential danger if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump's claim to absolute immunity?

    -If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of absolute immunity, it could set a dangerous precedent where a president could potentially commit crimes without fear of legal repercussions, undermining the rule of law and the balance of powers within the U.S. government.

  • What is the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing presidential actions for their constitutionality?

    -The Supreme Court has the power and duty to declare what the law is, as established in Marbury v. Madison. This includes reviewing presidential actions to ensure they are in accordance with the Constitution, and can declare actions unconstitutional if they violate the law.

  • What is the 'Democracy Summer' initiative mentioned by Congressman Jamie Rasin?

    -Democracy Summer is an initiative that gathers high school and college students to participate in democratic politics through seminars and practical work with democratic campaigns. It aims to educate young people about the Constitution, the political system, and current issues, and to build the future of the Democratic Party.

  • What is the argument made by Trump regarding the acceptance of money from foreign governments and the emoluments clause?

    -Trump has claimed that he can accept money from foreign governments and kings, and that waving his federal salary or returning the profits of such payments to the U.S. government is sufficient to comply with the emoluments clause, which is a topic for the next episode of the series.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Debunking Presidential Immunity Claims

The video discusses the misconception that the President of the United States, as commander-in-chief, has the power to act without legal consequences. Congressman Jamie Rasin addresses the Supreme Court's consideration of presidential immunity for Donald Trump and counters the right-wing fallacy that the president is above the law. Rasin emphasizes the importance of the Constitution and the system of checks and balances, highlighting that the president's primary duty is to ensure laws are faithfully executed, not violated.

05:01

🏛️ The Structure of the U.S. Constitution

This paragraph delves into the structure and intent of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the distribution of powers among the branches of government. It underscores the principle that Congress, as outlined in Article One, holds significant law-making authority. The president's role, as stipulated in Article Two, is to execute the laws, not to act with absolute power. The paragraph also discusses the impeachment process and the potential consequences for a president who violates the law, including criminal prosecution.

10:02

🚫 No Immunity for Criminal Acts

The speaker refutes the idea that a U.S. president, even a former one, has immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed during their term. It contrasts the U.S. Constitution with those of other countries that may provide such immunity. The paragraph also references the case of Donald Trump, where his claim to immunity is being challenged legally. The discussion includes the importance of judicial review and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the law.

15:02

📜 The Constitution Binds All

The video emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution is designed to hold those in power accountable, including the president. It discusses the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law. The paragraph highlights a Supreme Court decision that reinforces this principle and the potential dangers of granting criminal immunity to a president. It also touches on historical precedents, such as the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, where the assumption was that a former president could face criminal prosecution.

20:03

🚨 The Dangers of Unchecked Presidential Power

This section of the script highlights the potential risks of a president acting without the check of criminal prosecution. It presents hypothetical scenarios where a president could abuse power, such as ordering the assassination of political rivals with impunity. The paragraph argues against the notion that presidential immunity would prevent such abuses of power and stresses the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.

25:05

🗳️ Democracy Summer and Political Engagement

Congressman Jamie Rasin discusses Democracy Summer, an initiative aimed at educating and engaging young people in democratic politics. The program involves seminars with experts and practical work with Democratic campaigns. The goal is to educate participants about the Constitution, the political system, and to prepare them for active involvement in politics, including efforts to restore abortion rights through federal law.

30:07

⚖️ The Supreme Court's Role in Presidential Accountability

The video addresses concerns about the Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's claim of immunity and the potential implications of such a ruling. It discusses the potential for the Court to delay proceedings, which could affect the timing of Trump's trial. The speaker criticizes the Court for considering what they view as an obvious question and for the potential impact on the integrity of the U.S. legal system.

35:07

💵 The Emoluments Clause and Presidential Conduct

The final paragraph outlines plans for the next episode, which will focus on the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. It will explore claims that foreign governments and individuals can provide financial benefits to the president without consequence, provided the president waives their federal salary or returns such profits to the U.S. government. The episode will delve into the history and purpose of the Emoluments Clause and its significance for presidential conduct.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Commander-in-Chief

The term 'Commander-in-Chief' refers to the person who holds the highest military authority in a country. In the context of the video, it is discussed that the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy during times of actual conflict, not a dictator with unlimited power. The video emphasizes that any claim of the president having the power to do whatever he wants is a fallacy.

💡Constitutional Fallacies

This phrase describes misconceptions or false claims about the U.S. Constitution. The video aims to debunk such fallacies, particularly those related to presidential powers and immunity. The discussion focuses on the erroneous belief that the president, as Commander-in-Chief, is above the law.

💡Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity refers to the legal protection a sitting president might have from certain legal proceedings. The video discusses the Supreme Court's consideration of whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution. It is a central issue because it questions the balance of power and the rule of law.

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and has the final say on matters of national law. In the video, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court is considering the question of presidential immunity, which is a significant moment for the rule of law and the Constitution.

💡Rule of Law

The rule of law is the principle that every individual is subject to the law, including those who govern. The video emphasizes that no one, not even the president, is above the law. It is a foundational aspect of democratic societies and is central to the discussion about presidential powers and accountability.

💡Impeachment

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body brings charges against a high official of government. The video discusses the constitutional provision for impeaching and convicting the president for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,' which contradicts the claim of absolute immunity.

💡Conspiracy

In the legal context, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act. The video mentions conspiracy charges against Donald Trump related to his actions to overturn the election results, which are argued to be unrelated to any official acts of the president.

💡Separation of Powers

The separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state, wherein the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The video argues that the claim of presidential immunity undermines this principle by suggesting the president is not bound by the laws made by Congress or accountable through the judiciary.

💡Electoral College

The Electoral College is the process by which the president and vice president of the United States are elected. The video discusses fraudulent claims related to the Electoral College slates and the president's alleged attempts to interfere with the legitimate process, which are central to the criminal charges against him.

💡Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of a court to review and strike down laws or executive actions which violate the provisions of a constitution. The video references Marbury v. Madison to illustrate that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the constitutionality of presidential actions, including claims of immunity.

💡Democracy Summer

Democracy Summer is an initiative aimed at engaging young people in democratic politics through education and involvement in campaigns. The video mentions this program as a way to build the future of the Democratic Party and educate participants about the Constitution and political processes.

Highlights

The Supreme Court is currently considering the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump.

Jamie Rasin, a congressman, refutes the right-wing fallacy that a president has absolute immunity and can do whatever he wants.

The claim of presidential immunity is a 'case of first impression', with no direct precedents from previous presidents' behavior.

The Constitution grants the president the title of 'commander-in-chief' of the Army and Navy, not of the nation.

The president's duty is to ensure laws are faithfully executed, not to violate them.

The impeachment power and the ability to prosecute a president are constitutional checks on the executive branch.

Judges in the DC Circuit unanimously rejected Trump's claim to immunity, emphasizing the rule of law.

The structure of the U.S. Constitution prioritizes Congress and the people over the presidency.

Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6th, 2021, were an assault on the constitutional provisions governing succession in office.

The Supreme Court decision in U.S. versus Lee establishes that no one is above the law, including the president.

Trump's lawyers argue a tortured interpretation of the impeachment clause to suggest he has immunity from prosecution.

Historically, it has been assumed that former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while in office.

The DC Circuit questioned the dangerous implications of Trump's immunity argument, including the potential for political assassinations.

Granting immunity to a president undermines the separation of powers and the ability of Congress to legislate and the executive to prosecute.

The concept of Democracy Summer involves educating young people about the Constitution, political systems, and issues, then engaging them in Democratic campaigns.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump's immunity, it could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

Trump's claim that a president needs immunity to get things done contradicts historical precedent and the foundational principles of the U.S. government.

The difference between civil immunity for official acts and criminal immunity is significant, with the latter not protecting a president from prosecution for criminal behavior.

Transcripts

00:00

we've got a hugely topical episode today

00:02

I have the incredible honor as always of

00:04

being joined by my co-host for our

00:05

series class with Jamie Rasin where the

00:08

congressman debunks right-wing

00:09

constitutional fallacies and fever

00:11

dreams today's episode could not come at

00:13

a more opportune moment as the Supreme

00:15

Court now considers the question of

00:17

presidential immunity for Donald Trump

00:19

and while there's a lot of spin out

00:20

there no one to better counter that

00:22

disinformation than Jamie Rasin so I'll

00:24

hand it over to the congressman who will

00:26

take on the right-wing fallacy that as

00:28

commander-in-chief the president has

00:30

both the power to do whatever he wants

00:32

and absolute immunity from any legal

00:34

consequences for criminal actions Brian

00:36

thank you so much I'm delighted to be

00:38

with everybody uh today we're taking on

00:40

a fallacy that's so obvious so glaring

00:43

and so striking but what's interesting

00:45

is um that sometimes it's the most

00:48

obvious fallacies that are the trickiest

00:51

ones to debunk and refute I remember uh

00:54

Sherlock Holmes once saying that there's

00:57

nothing more deceptive than an obvious

01:00

is fact and that's definitely true in

01:02

the age of Donald Trump because um this

01:04

is a case of first impression like so

01:07

many of the other issues that are raised

01:09

by Donald Trump because no other

01:11

president has acted in such extreme and

01:14

explosive and incendiary ways so it's

01:17

not like there's a bunch of precedents

01:19

that map out how to respond to it and so

01:21

we have to uh search through the

01:24

Constitution to explain why his actions

01:26

are completely in derogation of the

01:30

Constitutional fabric itself the case

01:32

that is being considered by the Supreme

01:34

Court Donald Trump's claim that he's

01:36

absolutely immune is indeed a case of

01:39

first impression um just like many of

01:41

the other uh fallacies that he has

01:44

floated during this period but what

01:45

we're going to look at is this one as

01:47

commanderin-chief of the nation the

01:49

president has both the power to do

01:51

whatever he wants and absolute immunity

01:54

from any legal consequences for his

01:56

criminal actions now there are actually

01:59

multiple fallacies tucked in here I've

02:01

snuck in like a a law professor on a

02:05

final exam the first is as

02:06

commander-in-chief of the nation which

02:08

the president is not that is not his

02:10

title he's commander-in-chief of the

02:13

Army and Navy during times of actual

02:16

conflict from article two of the

02:18

Constitution and uh of the militias when

02:21

they're called up into actual service so

02:24

any president who walks around saying

02:25

I'm the commanderin-chief like he's the

02:27

dictator of the country is just

02:30

absolutely wrong um but the central

02:32

fallacies here are that the president

02:34

can do whatever he wants something that

02:35

we heard repeatedly from Donald Trump

02:38

when he was in president he says and

02:39

then there's the article two which

02:41

allows me to do whatever I want of

02:43

course the central job of the president

02:45

under Article 2 is to take care that the

02:48

laws are Faithfully executed not that

02:51

the laws are violated or the laws are

02:53

departed from but the laws are

02:55

Faithfully executed and if the president

02:57

could do whatever he wants then why do

02:59

we have have the power to impeach and

03:02

convict the president for treason

03:04

bribery and other high crimes and

03:07

misdemeanors um and then why do we have

03:09

the power to prosecute him or do we

03:12

because that's what this case is really

03:14

about that has gone up to the Supreme

03:16

Court United States versus Trump that

03:18

was found against the president um in

03:22

District Court by judge chuckin against

03:24

the president by the DC circuit panel an

03:27

excellent panel made up of judges pan

03:31

Henderson and Childs two Democratic uh

03:34

nominees to the bench one Republican

03:36

nominee to the bench but all unanimously

03:38

rejecting Trump's claim what does he say

03:41

he says a former president cannot be

03:43

prosecuted criminally for anything that

03:46

he did while he was in office pursuant

03:50

to his office and again no president has

03:52

ever alleged that before which is why

03:54

it's so foreign and so strange to our

03:57

experience um the judges in the DC

04:00

circuit do a great job of leading us

04:02

through this and I'll kind of follow

04:04

their lead and embellish a little bit on

04:07

um several different points but the the

04:10

first point I want to make is generally

04:12

about the structure of the Constitution

04:15

um article one puts Congress in the

04:20

first article for a reason which is that

04:23

we overthrew a king we wanted to get

04:25

away from monarchical government and we

04:27

wanted to vest power not not in a

04:31

monarch a lord in a zar or an emperor

04:35

but in we the people and the House of

04:38

Representatives and the Senators and the

04:41

Senate are the representatives of the

04:43

people and we are the law making branch

04:46

and if you look at the Constitution as I

04:48

hope you will you will see that article

04:50

one goes on for a long time setting

04:53

forth all of the powers that Congress

04:56

has to regulate commerce among the

04:58

states to regulate commerce between

05:00

America and other nations to uh coin

05:06

money to govern naturalization to govern

05:09

the district that's to become the seat

05:12

of government um and on and on and then

05:16

in article one section 8 Clause 18 and

05:20

all other powers that are necessary and

05:23

proper to the execution of the foregoing

05:26

power so it's very expansive then you

05:28

get to article two section three and

05:31

look at that last phrase there this is

05:33

really the core of it you know it's

05:34

about naming ambassadors and so on

05:37

giving a State of the Union Address he

05:39

shall take care that the laws be

05:41

Faithfully executed um and shall

05:43

commission all the officers of the

05:45

United States that's it and then you get

05:48

right into section four after stating

05:50

that the president shall Faithfully

05:53

execute the laws um setting forth how

05:56

the president can be impeached the

05:58

president VP and all civil officers

06:00

shall be removed from office on

06:01

impeachment for and conviction of

06:04

treason bribery or other high crimes um

06:07

and misdemeanors but I just want you to

06:09

keep that design structurally generally

06:12

in mind as we get into this issue

06:14

because Congress has put first and the

06:17

president's job under section two is to

06:19

take care that the laws are Faithfully

06:21

executed to implement the laws of the

06:24

Congress all right now um Trump uh

06:29

attempted to bypass and

06:33

overthrow the Constitution of the United

06:35

States when he tried to stay in office

06:37

in the weeks leading up to January 6th

06:39

and then on January 6th itself uh that's

06:42

what this case is about uh this case

06:45

comes from the criminal trial of Donald

06:48

Trump on four charges that have been

06:51

brought by special counsel Jack Smith

06:54

the first is a conspiracy to defraud the

06:56

United States of America by collecting

06:59

all of these fraudulent Electoral

07:01

College slates from different states and

07:04

then asserting that these are the

07:06

Bonafide honest electors determined by

07:11

the states in their presidential

07:12

election which they most assuredly were

07:15

not the second is the conspiracy to

07:18

obstruct a federal proceeding here the

07:21

joint session of Congress called under

07:24

the 12th Amendment to receive the

07:26

Electoral College votes sent in by the

07:29

governor ERS through their certificates

07:31

of ascertainment sent to uh the house

07:34

and the Senate and to the archist of the

07:37

United States um third is actual

07:41

interference with the federal proceeding

07:44

um and then the fourth is violation of

07:47

the voting rights of the people a

07:50

conspiracy to deprive uh persons of the

07:53

United States of their right to vote

07:56

okay so those are the four criminal

07:58

charges Donald Trump asserts against all

08:01

of them that he's absolutely immune uh

08:05

from Criminal prosecution for official

08:08

acts he undertook as president now one

08:11

of the amusing things about that is

08:13

asserting that the attempt to overthrow

08:16

the presidential election was an

08:17

official Act of course His official

08:20

responsibility there was to leave office

08:24

after four years um and to take care

08:27

that the laws were F Faithfully exec

08:29

uted including all of the laws passed

08:32

under the Electoral College Provisions

08:35

in the Constitution that's what he was

08:36

supposed to do but he's saying no he

08:38

undertook these official acts to try to

08:41

get the state legislator to set aside

08:43

the Electoral College votes uh by trying

08:45

to get state election officials like

08:47

Secretary of State Brad raffensberger in

08:49

Georgia just to find him

08:52

11,780 votes um and then by trying to

08:55

get the Department of Justice to falsely

08:58

declare it a corrupt and fraudulent

09:00

election and then finally by trying to

09:03

get vice president Pence to step outside

09:06

of His official constitutional role um

09:10

administering the uh counting of the

09:12

Electoral College votes the idea was to

09:14

try to get Pence to force it into a

09:18

contingent election or just to go ahead

09:20

and announce that Trump was president

09:21

and then Trump was prepared to ride over

09:24

on the shoulders of the mob um like

09:27

musolini and come in and simp

09:29

declare himself uh uh Emperor excuse me

09:33

president uh again and then um invoke

09:36

the Insurrection act and call in the

09:38

National Guard to come and put down the

09:40

insurrectionary chaos that he had

09:42

Unleashed against us all right that was

09:45

basically um the plan well um he says uh

09:52

you can't charge me for any of these

09:54

things I'm absolutely immune from

09:57

Criminal prosecution as a former

09:58

president now now um on behalf of uh

10:01

Trump's argument let's say uh let's

10:04

stipulate this there are some

10:07

constitutions in other countries which

10:09

make former presidents immune from

10:13

Criminal prosecution uh for things like

10:16

coups and insurrections uh one of them

10:19

for a while anyway was Chile which said

10:22

that

10:23

Pino um could not be prosecuted and this

10:26

was part of an arrangement they made

10:28

with the new con stion he would have

10:30

immunity from Criminal prosecution very

10:32

explicitly set forth in that

10:35

Constitution there's a couple other

10:36

examples there's nothing like that in

10:39

the US Constitution and of course as

10:41

we'll come to see it cuts against

10:43

everything we believe about our

10:45

Constitution and its entire uh

10:47

constitutional design so um and in fact

10:52

that Common Sense uh intuition was

10:54

articulated by the Republican judge in

10:56

the DC Circuit Judge uh Henderson

10:59

um who said that it would be a striking

11:02

Paradox if the one person in the country

11:05

charged with taking care that the laws

11:07

be Faithfully executed could defy and

11:10

violate the laws and then be exempt for

11:14

his violation of federal criminal laws

11:16

um in the process all right so how do we

11:19

go about looking at this claim well um

11:22

Trump says first of all the he's so

11:25

immune from prosecution it's not even up

11:27

to the courts to determine whether he's

11:30

uh immune from prosecution or not uh

11:32

that of course is ridiculous under

11:34

Marbury versus Madison the uh famous

11:37

Supreme Court decision rendered by Chief

11:39

Justice John Marshall proclaiming the

11:42

doctrine of judicial review that the

11:43

Supreme Court um uh has the right the

11:46

power and the duty to declare what the

11:48

law is it's emphatically the provin and

11:50

duty of the court to say what the law is

11:54

and to sort out you know precisely these

11:56

kinds of uh these kinds of conf

11:59

conflicts we've got Supreme Court

12:02

decisions um that stand for the

12:05

proposition in fact that the Supreme

12:08

Court can review presidential actions

12:11

for their constitutionality and here's a

12:14

great one everybody can remember it's

12:15

called the steel seizure case in this

12:18

case um President Truman faced a series

12:23

of strikes around the country and was

12:26

nervous along with Congress that the

12:29

shutdown of the steel industry would

12:30

interfere with necessary production of

12:33

Weaponry during the Korean War and

12:38

Congress attempted to give uh President

12:41

Truman the power to intervene to reopen

12:47

the steel plants by seizing the steel

12:49

plants taking government possession of

12:51

them and then um commanding uh

12:55

production of Steel that failed in

12:57

Congress Congress rejected that effort

13:00

but then the president uh Truman just

13:03

went ahead and did that anyway and he

13:05

said we're going to take possession of

13:06

the steel plants in order to keep the

13:09

war effort going and I'm going to invoke

13:11

my War Powers my Powers as

13:14

commanderin-chief during a a time of

13:16

actual conflict in order to do this and

13:19

the Supreme Court said well wait a

13:20

second here um the president of the

13:23

United stat has the job of enforcing the

13:25

laws and Justice Jackson set it out

13:29

nicely in his concurring opinion where

13:32

he said think of it kind of like a stop

13:34

light um either you've got a green light

13:37

where the Constitution specifically

13:39

gives the president the power to do

13:41

something like to appoint the officers

13:44

in the in the uh cabinet subject um to

13:48

the advice and consent of the senate or

13:50

to name ambassadors subject to advice

13:54

and consent those are clear uh

13:57

delegations to the president to be able

13:58

to do something there you got a green

14:00

light and nobody can say oh no the

14:03

president you nominated the wrong person

14:05

that's not the best qualified person

14:06

that is totally within Presidential

14:09

Power to decide that okay um a red light

14:14

would be something where a power is

14:17

vested by the Constitution in another

14:20

branch of the government take for

14:22

example the power to declare war that

14:26

power is given to Congress but let's say

14:28

the President says this is such an

14:31

important matter such an important

14:33

foreign policy conflict I'm going to

14:35

take away from Congress the power to

14:37

declare war and I am going to declare

14:39

war right now for the country that's a

14:42

red light that would clearly be um

14:46

unconstitutional and uh under Marbury

14:48

versus Madison the Supreme Court would

14:50

have the power to revoke that but then

14:52

there's the yellow light situation and

14:54

this is where um a particular power is

14:57

not specifically

14:59

enumerated either under article two for

15:02

the executive branch or under article

15:04

one for the legislative branch and

15:06

Congress has not said anything about it

15:09

it's neither delegated that power

15:11

explicitly to the president nor has it

15:13

attempted to delegate that power to the

15:16

president but been thwarted in the

15:18

effort to do so um and there's a yellow

15:20

light situation and that's where the

15:22

court says it's very fact-based

15:25

intensive analysis but the court said in

15:27

the steel seizure case this is an easy

15:30

one because there's nothing in the uh

15:35

the power of Commander in Chief that

15:38

explicitly sets forth the power to seize

15:42

steel mills or seize any uh instrument

15:46

of the economy or Commerce to keep

15:48

things going um and Congress might have

15:52

been able to delegate this to the

15:54

president to give him this power but it

15:57

did not do so there was a bill put in to

16:00

try to say the president has the power

16:02

over steel mills and can open them up

16:04

but it chose not to do that that becomes

16:06

a red light at that point um he

16:10

essentially has been specifically

16:12

foreclosed to undertake that action all

16:15

right all of which is to say um the DC

16:19

Circuit Court was very clear that this

16:23

matter is indeed going to be up to uh

16:27

the Judiciary to decide and in the

16:30

course of finding that the court cited

16:34

this uh significant passage that has

16:36

been uh absorbed into the bloodstream of

16:39

America over the decades it comes from a

16:41

Supreme Court decision called us versus

16:43

Lee in which the court wrote no man in

16:46

this country is so high that he is above

16:48

the law no officer of the law May set

16:51

that law at Defiance with impunity all

16:54

the officers of the government from the

16:55

highest to the lowest are creatures of

16:58

the law and are bound to obey it it is

17:00

the only supreme power in our system of

17:02

government and every man who by

17:04

accepting office participates in its

17:06

functions is only the more strongly

17:08

bound to submit to that Supremacy and to

17:11

observe the limitations which it imposes

17:13

upon the exercise of the authority which

17:15

it gives in other words in this passage

17:18

which has been you know recycled over

17:20

the centuries the Supreme Court is