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
ratification discussions, and there was nothing in that, and we have cited certain things in the brief from james wilson and edward pendleton, and justice story, and nothing from hamilton, and all that hamilton was describing is the undisputed point that a sitting president cannot be held for prosecution and removal of office and whether that removal is impeachment and conviction or simply the end of the term. now, a structural point as well that i want to make that the district court made is if this rule were right, and if the precedent rule were correct, it would pose significant separation of powers, because if congress had acted and all sorts of reasons that congress won t act because one, they would not believe it is required and also
historical, my friend on the other side suggests this is what the founders were talking about and this is what they were worried about. i think it is entirely an inaccurate representation of the founding era history. there is basically no discussion of the impeachment judgment clause, which i take the defendant s principled textual argument to be, what the impeachment judgment clause did was two things, as the district court described, constrained the sanctions that congress could place on an impeached and convicted officer, not only a president, any kind of officer, to removal or disqualification. and then it made clear that that impeachment did not impose some sort of precollusive bar on some sort of prosecution. you would think if there is a impeachment first requirement, you might actually find something, somewhere, in the sources, the framing convention in philadelphia, the ratification discussions, early history, there was nothing of that. we cited certain things in our