Federalist Society Co-Founder Says Mueller's Investigation Is Unconstitutional

[DonViejo]

by Alberto Luperon | 8:45 pm, May 13th, 2018

Some of the actions taken by Special Counsel Robert Mueller are unconstitutional because the Russia probe stepped over the legal line, claims one of the nation’s most prominent legal scholars.

“At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that ‘principal officers’ must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent,” Steven G. Calabresi, who teaches out of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. According to Calabresi, Mueller is acting like a principal officer. The special counsel, after all, is “investigating a large number of people” and has charged defendants for alleged crimes unrelated to Russian collusion (eg. Paul Manafort). Remember, the Special Counsel was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Attorney Jeff Session recused from the Moscow probe.

“That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have,” Calabresi wrote. “Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.”

He points to the majority decision in the 7-1 ruling in the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson. Justices upheld the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. For Calabresi, the important part are the limits that the ruling set for an “inferior officer” like what Mueller is supposed to be.

From the op-ed:

[Chief Justice William] Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

So Morrison’s appointment was fine under the Constitution, but for Calabresi, Mueller’s actions sit outside these bounds because they go beyond the original mandate.

For the context of context, it’s worth mentioning that Calabresi is a bit of Trump fan. In a February 1, 2017, op-ed for Fox News he said the current POTUS had the “best incoming cabinet of any president since Abraham Lincoln’s famous Team of Rivals in 1861.” ....

more
https://lawandcrime.com/politics/federalist-society-co-founder-says-muellers-investigation-is-unconstitutional/

[NewJeffCT]

1. Isn't part of Mueller's charge

that he has the power of a US attorney?

[unblock]

7. it's limited to a specific scope of investigation.

so it's technically less powerful than a u.s. attorney, which can go after any violation of federal law.

being more newsworthy doesn't mean more powerful in the sense this guy's trying to use it.

[dalton99a]

2. Typical Trumpanzee bullshit

[YessirAtsaFact]

3. Conservative judicial activism

Brought to you by the people who transformed the 2nd amendment into the universal right of any idiot to have any kind of gun he/she wants

[PoliticAverse]

4. Well, how will the current Supreme Court rule on the issue? n/t

[HopeAgain]

5. Oxymoron

"0ne of the nation’s most prominent legal scholars" from the Federalist Society is an oxymoron. Federalist society moron is more like it.

[unblock]

6. pretty stupid argument, imho. mueller's scope is specifically limited; in fact,

that's one of the challenges donnie and his supporters are throwing up against him, that he's overstepping his limited scope.

so now they're arguing the exact opposite, that his scope isn't limited enough.

additionally, rehnquist's quote relates to "independent" counsels, not "special" counsels. i can't say that the difference immediately undermines the relevance of rehnquist's view, but it certainly makes it a harder to argue its applicability.

mueller isn't more powerful than a u.s. attorney in the legal sense. he can't investigate everyone for everything. he's only more powerful in terms of political impact because the limited number of criminals within his limited scope are all in the white house and the governance of the republican party and probably congress as well.

[matt819]

8. Ho Hum

And if it were a special counsel investigating a Democratic president, it would be constitutional.

These people are so fucking predictable and exhausting.

[gratuitous]

9. The law and the facts are against him

So it appears that Luperon is fashioning some facts and some law he likes better.

[Downtown Hound]

10. Wow. Coming from a guy who writes op-eds for Faux News. What a surprise.

Seriously, why are you even posting this shit here?

[Orsino]

11. This is the sound this species makes when frightened. n/t

[Cicada]

12. Even if true, does one convicted get off?

Are Republicans going to argue the perp should be freed on a legal technicality?