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
been held criminally liable, and that s in the face at least with the respect of the legislators of an explicit constitutional privilege. i don t view the united states versus johnson or ex parte of virginia as discretionary distinction and what johnson says is that it does not say, hey, when you were doing these other things that were ministerial, it is legislative acts, it is drawing between legislative and nonlegislative acts and that is the right reading of ex parte virginia and they go on the say judicial acts and the argument of picking a jury and they don t use the words to my recollection ministerial that is because they were criminal acts and picking the jury picked on race is a criminal act, and whatever johnson did, and i believe it is the very same statute fraud against the united states that is before us today. and i would say that distinction in those cases is in the judicial case johnson led
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