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
along with analysts chuck rosenberg and lisa rubin. what can we expect based on arguments put forward in advance by both sides? reporter: to set the scene, because donald trump is here in person the security has really been ramped up. there s a much greater police presence. in terms of in the courtroom, this is a long shot for donald trump, this idea that a former president can t be prosecuted for any acts whited while serving in offense, it s belied by the fact that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon. this three-judge panel is an all-female panel with two judges appointed by president biden and one appointed by former president george h.w. bush. in addition to arguing immunity, trump lawyers are also making the argument that this produce is improper under double jeopardy. ken, i need to interrupt you because the hearing is starting. let s listen in right now. our jurisdiction was challenged by an amicus. you are not questioning our collateral order jurisdiction? [indis
An email discovered by the NDP suggests a senior staffer within the Doug Ford government was aware of details of the Greenbelt removal plan earlier than they originally said.
decisions without being inhibited without the fear of criminal prosecution, but it seems to me that there are other article 2 implications here prevailing. it seem under article 2, there is an executive vested clause, and that the executive branch as an institution to have constitutional executive power vest in a newly elected president. there s also an executive interest as an institution in law enforcement in enforcing criminal laws, and so it seems to me that if we are weighing executive interests versus public interests, and public interests like the integrity of an election that president trump s position is not fully aligned with the institutional interests of the executive branch, and in this balancing
criminal prosecution. but it seems to me that there are some other article 2 interests here that are counterveiling. for example, under the under article 2, there is an executive vesting clause. there is an interest of the executive branch as an institution to have constitutional executive power vest in a newly elected president. there is also an executive interest as an institution in law enforcement, in enforcing criminal laws. and so it seems to me if we re weighing executive interests versus public interests, public interests and things like the integrity of an election, that president trump s position is not fully aligned with the institutional interests of executive branch. and in this balancing test that weakens the executive power that