{"id":2287703,"date":"2024-07-02T06:51:02","date_gmt":"2024-07-02T10:51:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/thomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-office-is-constitutional\/"},"modified":"2024-07-02T06:58:28","modified_gmt":"2024-07-02T10:58:28","slug":"thomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-office-is-constitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/thomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-office-is-constitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"Thomas Questions Whether Jack Smith&#8217;s Office Is Constitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fthomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-office-is-constitutional%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2287703&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>On the final day of \u2062a significant Supreme Court term, Justice Clarence Thomas \u2064criticized the Biden \u200cJustice Department&#8217;s prosecution of former President Trump in the landmark case\u2062 &#8220;Trump v. United States.&#8221; Thomas questioned the\u200d legality\u2064 of the prosecution, particularly whether Special Counsel Jack\u2063 Smith\u2062 was lawfully appointed. He argued that Congress\u2063 never created Smith&#8217;s office and Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to identify any statute that clearly establishes it. \u2064Thomas highlighted various statutes that Garland used \u200cto justify Smith&#8217;s appointment as dubious. \u2063He emphasized the \u2063importance of respecting the Constitution&#8217;s\u2062 separation of \u200cpowers and\u200c emphasized the need \u200dfor \u200bclarity on \u2063the legality of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-recruits-allies-on-capitol-hill-to-defend-him-ahead-of-third-indictment\/\" title=\"Trump enlists Capitol Hill allies to protect him before third indictment.\">special\u2064 counsel&#8217;<\/a>s appointment before the prosecution could proceed.\u200d Thomas&#8217;s \u200cconcurrence raised \u200csignificant questions about \u2062the government&#8217;s actions in this case.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>On the final day of a significant Supreme Court term, and in one of its most consequential cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a stunning rebuke to our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/iranian-americans-demand-biden-admin-back-regime-change\/\" title=\"Iranian Americans Demand Biden Admin Back Regime Change\">ruling regime<\/a> for its disingenuous effort to legitimize the republic-eviscerating lawfare inquisition against Donald Trump.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas took to a concurrence in the landmark <em>Trump v. United States <\/em>case not so much to affirm the majority\u2019s view regarding former President Trump\u2019s immunity from prosecution, but to question whether the Biden Justice Department\u2019s prosecution of Trump itself was legal.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President \u2018is not above the law,\u2019\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cBut, as the Court explains, the President\u2019s immunity from prosecution for his official acts <em>is<\/em> the law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, the associate justice asserted, \u201cI am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been \u2018established by Law,\u2019 as the Constitution requires.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,\u201d Thomas wrote. <\/p>\n<p>Thomas wants the lower courts to weigh in on whether Special Counsel Jack Smith is in fact \u201cduly authorized.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Under the Constitution\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/browse\/essay\/artII-S2-C2-3-1\/ALDE_00013092\/\">appointment clause<\/a>, which is key to ensuring the separation of powers, Congress creates offices, and either presidents fill them with the advice and consent of the Senate or, if Congress delegates them the authority, the president, \u201cCourts of Law,\u201d or \u201cHeads of Departments\u201d may appoint \u201cinferior officers.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>This represented a break from and corrective to the British monarchy, under which, as Thomas recounts, quoting the Declaration of Independence, the king had \u201cerected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Thomas makes a compelling case that Congress never created Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s office. Even if it did, he asserts, Smith may well not be lawfully appointed to it. Historically, the legislative branch has created special and independent counsels by statute. Not so in the case of Special Counsel Smith. Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to identify any statute \u201cthat clearly creates\u201d Smith\u2019s office.<\/p>\n<p>He did rely on \u201cseveral statutes of a general nature\u201d to justify Smith\u2019s appointment, per the concurrence. However, Thomas found Garland\u2019s use of 28 U.S.C. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/509\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u00a7509<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/510\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">510<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/515\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">515<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/28\/533#:~:text=28%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20533%20%2D%20Investigative%20and%20other%20officials%3B%20appointment,-U.S.%20Code&#038;text=to%20conduct%20such%20other%20investigations,directed%20by%20the%20Attorney%20General.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">533<\/a> to justify that appointment to be dubious.<\/p>\n<p>Sections 509 and 510, Thomas notes, deal with the attorney general\u2019s general functions and \u201cability to delegate authority to \u2018any other officer, employee, or agency.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Section 515, which deals with specially appointed attorneys, concerns those tabbed by the attorney general \u201cunder law,\u201d suggesting, as Thomas says, \u201cthat such an attorney\u2019s office must have already been created by some other law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Section 533 concerns the attorney general\u2019s power to \u201cappoint officials \u2026 to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.\u201d Whether or not \u201cofficials\u201d are equivalent to \u201cofficers,\u201d Thomas writes, \u201cthis provision would be a curious place for Congress to hide the creation of an office for a Special Counsel\u201d since it falls within a chapter pertaining to the Federal Bureau of Investigations.<\/p>\n<p>None of these statutes create an office for the special counsel, at least \u201cnot with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose,\u201d Thomas wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, he noted in a footnote, Congress has previously granted the attorney general power to appoint \u201cadditional officers\u201d as he deems fit, but only to the Bureau of Prisons. This further suggests that the legislative branch circumscribed the appointment power and would have been apt to specify it if intended that the attorney general could appoint a special counsel like Jack Smith.<\/p>\n<p>While presidents have appointed special prosecutors previously, and without pointing to a specific authorizing statute, Thomas concedes the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those appointments. He concludes: <\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, <strong>the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law.<\/strong> Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee. (Emphasis mine)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>It is perhaps unlikely that Judge Tanya Chutkan, the presiding judge in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/opinion\/trump-indictment-exposes-politicized-justice-system-threatening-fundamental-rights-5448574\">Jan. 6 case<\/a> in which the presidential immunity question arose, will seriously weigh any challenge to Special Counsel Smith\u2019s legitimacy.<\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/08\/25\/judge-presiding-over-trumps-jan-6-trial-has-track-record-of-politically-charged-j6-rulings\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Judge Presiding Over Trump\u2019s Jan. 6 Trial Has Track Record Of Politically Charged J6 Rulings<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judge Aileen Cannon, however, who is overseeing Jack Smith\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/doj-asks-supreme-court-to-reject-trump-request-in-fbi-classified-documents-case\/\" title=\"DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Reject Trump Request in FBI Classified Documents Case\">classified documents case<\/a>, has shown a willingness to check the Justice Department\u2019s work. That seems more than prudent given the seeming abnormalities and defects in that prosecution and the zealousness that has led Smith to be smacked down by the Supreme Court historically, and in just the last two business days with the <em>Fischer <\/em>case, potentially wiping out of two of Smith\u2019s four Jan. 6 charges. Now the Supreme Court\u2019s presidential immunity ruling eliminates meaningful portions of the indictment as grounds for prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the court providing checks on Biden\u2019s hyper-political and weaponized Justice Department, it remains remarkable that merely one justice stepped into the breach to raise his hand and demand the courts scrutinize the lawfulness of Smith\u2019s office itself.<\/p>\n<p>We ought to celebrate Thomas\u2019 devotion to the Constitution and willingness to stand alone in its defense, but that he did so here is a reminder that the courts are no panacea. Ultimately, there is no substitute for vigorous legislative action to combat an administrative state run amok.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten.substack.com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On the final day of a significant Supreme Court term, Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the ruling regime for attempting to legitimize the prosecution of Donald Trump. Thomas questioned the legality of the Biden Justice Department&#8217;s prosecution of Trump in the landmark Trump v. United States case. He argued that the Special Counsel Jack Smith may not be lawfully appointed and that Congress never created his office. Thomas emphasized the importance of respecting the Constitution&#8217;s separation of powers and called for a closer examination of Smith&#8217;s legitimacy before the prosecution can proceed. Despite the Supreme Court providing some checks on the Justice Department, Thomas&#8217;s actions highlight the need for legislative action to combat government overreach<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":698,"featured_media":2287704,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Screen-Shot-2024-07-01-at-9.26.05-PM-1024x648.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[6335,32463,5660,4245,10215],"class_list":["post-2287703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-constitutional","tag-jack-smith","tag-office","tag-questions","tag-thomas"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Screen-Shot-2024-07-01-at-9.26.05-PM-1024x648.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2287703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/698"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2287703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2287703\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2287704"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2287703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2287703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2287703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}