Mueller, She Wrote: Another Sinister Reason Behind The SAVE Act

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

Mueller, She Wrote
The SAVE Act would give a future presidents control of the outcome of elections - and they'd be immune from prosecution. My latest:

Another Sinister Reason Behind The SAVE Act

The SAVE Act is garbage because it is racist, xenophobic, and unnecessary - but I think there's another sinister purpose behind it.

MuellerSheWrote
Sep 18, 2024

When Donald Trump argued for immunity, he brought up the Take Care clause of the constitution. He believes that because a core executive function is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, that he had a role and a responsibility to reach out to state election officials and ask for votes and push for alternate slates of electors. Therefore, since core executive functions are absolutely immune, the case against him brought by Jack Smith must be tossed out.

The Supreme Court, however, did not weigh in on whether Trump had a role in the election. From the immunity ruling:

On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. Of course, the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” plainly encompasses enforcement of federal election laws passed by Congress. Art. II, §3. And the President’s broad power to speak on matters of public concern does not exclude his public communications regarding the fairness and integrity of federal elections simply because he is running for re-election.

As the Government sees it, however, these allegations encompass nothing more than Trump’s “private scheme with private actors.” In its view, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to not only organize alternate slates of electors but also cause those electors—unapproved by any state official—to transmit votes to the President of the Senate for counting at the certification proceeding, thus interfering with the votes of States’ properly appointed electors. Indeed, the Constitution commits to the States the power to “appoint” Presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The President, meanwhile, plays no direct role in the process, nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do. And the Framers, wary of “cabal, intrigue and corruption,” specifically excluded from service as electors “all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office.” - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 68

The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.

/snip

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Faithful execution does not mean subverting the laws by murdering the intent of the laws.

[TommyT139]

2. So THAT is why...

So THAT is why the orange traitor is telling his minions to pass this at all costs.

[Martin Eden]

3. "Donald Trump ... believes that because a core executive function

is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed"

[Karadeniz]

4. Faithful execution of the laws...the constitution places election management

with the states. It doesn't call for the president to usurp that role.