LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER

LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power assignment: This Owlisdom is about reviewing Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA For today’s Ellen McCarthy Memorial Lecture, LLP, will examine the boundary of presidential power and accountability. In this exercise you will analyze facts and rulings of these cases, discuss presidential immunity while comparing some other related cases and evaluate the extent to which misinformation is affecting judicial processes. You will also examine state provisions on executive privilege, and propose amendments to clarify the issue.

What were the facts and the rulings in each case? What part of the Constitution was at issue in each case?

FACTS AND RULINGS

Trump v. Vance

• Explain the subpoena of the records of Trump’s businesses by the Manhattan District Attorney, and the underlying criminal probe.

• Explain how, in LSTD 510 7- 1 Presidential Power, the Supreme Court concluded that the President does not possess absolute immunity to state criminal inquirie.

• Explain which principles of the Constitution are to be linked with the presidential immunity and state powers.

The case was related to a summons of the Manhattan District Attorney for his account and financial statements for a criminal proceeding. The Court disallowed the claim to absolute immunity for the President of the United States from state criminal subpoenas claiming the constitution do not bar these subpoenas altogether (Trump v. Vance, 2020).

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

• Explain the subpoenas of congress for Trump’s financial records and the legislative background.
• The Ministry of Justice will need to explain how the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that lower federal courts needed to more adequately address the concerns of the separation of powers.
• Identify the constitutional issues of Checks and Balances and roles of congress.

Congress failed to obtain Trump’s financial records in response to congressional subpoenas. Trump v. Lower courts had not adequately considered the separation of powers concerns, and the Court set out quite broad considerations for deciding congressional subpoenas of the President. Mazars USA, LLP, 2020).

Given these cases, explain (citing the law) whether a U.S. president has absolute immunity from prosecution: (a) while in office, and (b) when no longer in office.

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

• Discuss LSTD 510 7-1 Presidential Power limitations on presidential immunity on Trump v. Vance, United States v. Nixon, and Clinton v. Jones.

• The former Presidents, he argues, are bound to the same legal rules like any other private citizen.

While in office:

Vance fits within the previous examples of whatone such asUnited States v.In Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and Clinton v.th precedents such as United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). These cases prove the principle that the President is not above the law and is not totally immune from criminal inquiry.In Nixon, for instance, the Supreme Court held that the President must abide by the judicial subpoena in connection with a criminal investigation and thus by implication that executive privilege is not absolute

When no longer in office:

 After leaving office a President is no longer immune from the law in the same way as any other private person.The reasoning of Nixon and Clinton implicitly acknowledged this principle, making that reasoning depend on ongoing or possible future litigation against a former president

Do either or both United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) and/or Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 (1997) provide any support to Trump’s claims?  Explain.

SUPPORT FROM NIXON AND CLINTON CASES

• Analyze LSTD 510 7 1 Presidential Power how the Nixon and Clinton cases undercut assertions of absolute presidential immunity.

Example

Claims of absolute presidential immunity suffer from Nixon and Clinton’s use.Nixon refused to be immune in criminal proceedings, and Clinton agreed with civil litigation against a President while in office for actions before being in office.

What legal or ethical influence, if any, did misinformation or disinformation have on the judicial analysis of any of these cases?  Did they affect the evolution of this area of law?  If not (yet), is there risk that it could?  If so, how, and can that be avoided?

INFLUENCE OF MISINFORMATION

• Assess the potential effect of misinformation on the judicial process, and on public trust in judicial processes, in LSTD 510 7 1 Presidential Power.t.

Example

Misinformation did not affect the judicial end of these cases directly, but it could threaten public confidence in judicial processes. The transparency and public understanding of the process is critical to avoid misleading the judicial precedents and rightly branding judiciary as integrity breathing institution.

What does your state provide regarding executive privilege for its governor, if anything?  How does it compare to what is available for the president?  If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about gubernatorial executive privilege.

STATE PROVISIONS ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

• Take research LSTD 510 7-1 and apply taught analysis to Presidential Power, discuss what your state’s provisions on executive privilege for the governor.

Example

Provisions diverge, some states allowing a little executive discretion as there is in the federal model. It is widely supported by public opinion that prefers transparency and accountability, but whose strength varies according to local political culture.

What specific language would you add to or change in the federal (or, if appropriate for your state) Constitution so that the issue of executive privilege can be clear and not open to interpretation? Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how these elements influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change. Assess the significance of your proposed change in light of the major debates or developments that you have analyzed in this Discussion.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

• To define and limit executive privilege we should propose clear language.

• LSTD 510 7 1 Presidential Power evaluate the importance of your proposed changes in relation to continuing debate.

Example

A proposed amendment would explicitly define and limit the scope of executive privilege: “The President shall not be exempt from compliance with judicial subpoenas for executive privilege, in which communications pertaining directly to national security may be protected subject to opinion by a bipartisan congressional panel.”

Amendments are intended to create a balance between the concept of executive confidentiality and accountability, grounding this debate on presidential accountability while resolving legal ambiguities over the executive privilege.

CLOSING

By following LSTD-510 7-1 Presidential Power these guidelines you will be able to examine the constitutional boundaries of president’s power and evaluate relevant case laws and then make sound constitutional changes for the issues of executive privilege. In the next module of covering the Constitutional basis of Search and Seizure in LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion

REFERENCES

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. (2020). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-715 

Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the County of New York, et al. (2020). Findlaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/19-635.html