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
the sorry, the legislative case is johnson is between ledge s slaytive acts and nonlegislative acts and this is judicial and judicial acts and this is presidential and nonpresidential acts and everything in the indictment is nonpresidential acts. your honor, i see that may i? there are a number of precedents or cases that the supreme court has reviewed cases of the president, and the case of youngstown where the supreme court reviewed harry truman s seizure of the steel mills in the korean war and the case of little bahrain where president johnson restricted the vessels, and where there were nationals from certain nationals of