Crusty Democrat Dino Rockers Should Have Some Dignity
Trump Destroyed Democrats in the State of the Union by Exposing Who They...
They Sat on Their Hands
Trump’s State of the Union Was What Young Americans Needed
The State of Disunion
Carville Trashes Trump — Maybe Carville Should Sit This One Out
The Left’s Woke Lawfare Is a Clear and Present Danger That Demands Action
A Possible Democrat Contract With America for 2026
Will Elizabeth Warren’s Socialist Poison Pill Undermine Trump’s Bipartisan Housing Reform...
Restoring Britain
Democrats Go From 'Affordability' to 'Abolish ICE'
The Future of the Department of War: Warfighters, Not Woke Harvard Students
Remembering the History of Regime Change
College Is Not an Expensive Scam, but Aimless Higher Education Is
Murses, Metrosexuals and the Self-Obsessed Modern Male
Tipsheet

Clarence Thomas Led the Way to Jack Smith's Demise

Clarence Thomas Led the Way to Jack Smith's Demise
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled U.S. presidents have immunity for official acts with President Donald Trump at the center of the case. 

In his concurrence in the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made the argument that Special Counsel appointments could broadly be unconstitutional, but especially if they are not appointed by Congress. 

Advertisement

"It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office 'established by Law,' as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office," Clarence wrote. "None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose."

"Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if 'Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment' in the Attorney General as a 'Hea[d] of Department,'" Thomas continued. 

Advertisement

Related:

2024 ELECTION

"So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it 'by Law.' Whether the Special Counsel’s office was 'established by Law' is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office," he argued. 

Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland outside of that constitutional standard, resulting in U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement