OPINION:
Precedents involving due process and immunity continue to overlap in the numerous private, administrative, judicial and prosecutorial actions against former President Donald Trump (“Special counsel Jack Smith’s great insurrection lie,” web, Jan. 1).
The latest filing by Mr. Smith holds that “the relevant passage of Marbury addressed the reviewability of acts by Executive Branch officers in general, not the President in particular” in attempting to suggest that the immunity of the executive branch confirmed in Marbury v. Madison does not apply to Mr. Trump.
Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, however, the Constitution actually states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Furthermore, in an apparent denial of reality, Mr. Smith speciously argues that the elimination of presidential immunity as protection against political retribution (confirmed under Marbury) does not “translate” to “an avalanche of criminal subpoenas.”
Yet Mr. Trump is being subjected to numerous political lawsuits, administrative determinations, judicial actions and criminal prosecutions that infringe on due process, attempt to besmirch a political candidate and use government funds to deplete the campaign funds of a political opponent.
In other words, in Mr. Smith’s view, only Mr. Trump is not entitled to the constitutional protections that the deep state has afforded to President Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Past presidential actions have been resolved by judicial review for constitutional order but never by criminal referral because of the discretionary political immunity protections confirmed under Marbury v. Madison.
It’s as if Mr. Smith himself cannot be accused of novel interpretations of law.
WILLIAM FIDURSKI
Clark, New Jersey
Please read our comment policy before commenting.