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
some in the question of the office seeker versus office holder, and so do we use the blasingame for that? if this court decides way the district court did, then blasingame does not have a role at all, because if this act is official or set of allegations are official, then the question is based on the fitzgerald analysis and history precedent, et cetera, and is there any quantum of immunity for a former president, and we believe that the answer to that question is no, and the reason of the district court then to turn to the indictment and consider this outer perimeter, civil outer perimeter. and do you believe they should decide the way that the district court i suppose that i mean on the blasingame did.
it in that opinion as determining whether it was office seeker versus office holder. do we use blasting game for that? so, if this court decides the case the way the district court does, did, pardon me, then i don t think blasting game has any role to play at all. because there is no question of whether, you know, is this act official or were these sets of allegations official. the question is, based on a fitzgerald analysis history precedent et cetera, you know, is there any quantum of immunity for a former president? we think the answer to that question is no. there is no reason as to the district court also found to turn to the indictment and consider this outer perimeter. this civil outer perimeter standard. how about the way the district court did? if you don t, i mean, i suppose blasting game. so, there are different ways the court could not decide it that way. i think to pick up on my response to judge childs, we