are inherent in marbury versus madison are like delivering a seal when requested, because there is a separate statute, and the secretary of the state had two of the hats on and he was on one hand the direct agent of the president, and that could never be examinable by the courts, but on the other hand, the original statute had imposed all of the purely ministerial duties that had to do with the recordkeeping and delivering of documents and if you had a land deed that had a seal on it, and the person asked for it no, discretion at all, but the take-care clause, there is no statute that could impose on the president, a, a mandatory duty to engage, and the notion that when the president is meeting with the department of justice and enforce federal fraud statutes and that being ministerial strikes me as insupportable. well, i think that you are missing what i am asking. which is, i think that it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be fait
first argument. after nixon, we then see a series of independent and special prosecutors investigating a range of different types of conduct. you saw independent counsel lawrence walsh in the iran contra affair and this is what the defendant invokes in the reply brief and in chapter 27 of that report, the independent counsel assumes that president reagan is subject to prosecution, and he says that we did not get there evidentiarily, and we thought that there was immunity and it has continued through to the present and so this notion of a floodgate, i think that, again, the careful investigations and the clinton era didn t result in any charges. the fact that this investigation did, doesn t reflect that we will see a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future. i think that it reflects fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges