Donald Trump appears in court during his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments on April 26, 2024 in New York City.arguments were made for social media. Social media was not made to make Supreme Court arguments persuasive or even understandable.
Lawyers and scholars of the Constitution have long struggled to understand the limits that the Constitution imposes on Congress’ ability to hold the executive accountable. The great Chief Justice John Marshall, in the one decision that every high school student reads about,, signaled clearly that there would be some limit. But alas, he didn’t grant us the favor of specifying precisely what that limit would be.
The Constitution then imagines that those certified slates of electors and their votes will then be transmitted to Congress, where those votes are ” counted on a date set by Congress , those votes are “counted.” Unlike with elections to the House and now Senate, the Constitution does not make Congress the judge of those elections .
“Because the organization of alternate slates of electors is based on, for example, the historical example of President Grant as something that was done pursuant to and ancillary and preparatory to the exercise of the core recommendation clause power,” Sauer claimed. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to see this point clearly, given the extraordinary immunity the Supreme Court has granted the president inat least in the civil context. There, the high court instructed lower courts to secure presidents immunity for acts “within the ‘outer perimeter’” of the “duties of his office.” But to suggest that there is an “outer perimeter” is to recognize that there are acts beyond that perimeter.