Constitutional Experts to Supreme Court – Smith Is as Eligible to Be Special Counsel as Taylor Swift | Joe Hoft


Get The Latest


Get The Latest

Constitutional Experts to Supreme Court – Smith Is as Eligible to Be Special Counsel as Taylor Swift

Corrupt Jack Smith and his many criminal acts taken to derail President Trump’s Presidential run may have come to an end. 

Trending Politics reports:

A new development could prove devastating to the Biden Administration’s attempts to engage former President Donald Trump in lawfare. Former Attorney General Ed Meese, Professor Gary Lawson, and Steven Calabresi have filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to declare that private citizen Jack Smith, was never constitutionally appointed as Special Counsel. This would render all actions he has taken legally moot.

The two widely respected constitutional scholars and former Reagan-Era AG have presented a compelling legal argument that under U.S. statutes governing to Dept. of Justice, only Congress can create offices subordinate to the Attorney General. As Smith was hired directly by current AG Merrick Garland, the correct constitutional process of appointment by the President, and confirmation by the full U.S. Senate never took place.

According to these scholars, corrupt Jack Smith has no constitutional right to do what he is doing.

Their amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief argues that Smith lacks authority to represent the United States by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in (called a petition for certiorari) because the office he holds has not been created by Congress and his appointment violates the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution.

The filing essentially claims U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland improperly appointed Smith to an office that does not exist with authority Garland does not possess.

Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a prominent constitutional law professor, first argue that only Congress can create federal offices such as Smith currently holds, which Congress has not done.

While the Constitution creates the offices of President and Vice President, Congress has the sole authority to create additional offices, because the Constitution says those offices must be “established by Law.” Congress previously passed a law to authorize a similar position called an “independent counsel,” but that statute expired in 1999.

Garland cannot hire a mere employee to perform tasks that Congress has not authorized, the attorneys write. Only an “officer” can hold such a significant level of authority. In creating the Department of Justice, Congress gave it certain powers by law, yet it authorized no office with all the powers of a U.S. Attorney that Garland has given Smith.

The amicus brief further argues, “Even if one somehow thinks that existing statutes authorize appointment of stand-alone special counsels with the full power of a U.S. Attorney, Smith was not properly appointed to such an ‘office.’” They assert even if special counsels were authorized by Congress, anyone in possession of such powers would require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Moreover, the brief argued that Smith has so much power, just like a U.S. Attorney, he is a “principal officer” under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which means he must first be nominated by the president and then confirmed by a majority of the U.S. Senate.

“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they write.

Hopefully the constitution will win and Smith will be gone. 

Leave a Comment