REGARDING THE CANNON DECISION ON THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE
The Court seeks to produce narrow rulings and technical rulings wherever possible, in the context of the extant corpus of law, continuing their mission to prohibit bypassing the people and the legislatures through legal activism (“Lawfare”).
Judge Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in a separate case that raised questions about the constitutionality of special counsels like Jack Smith. This opinion apparently gave Judge Cannon guidance on how to approach the Trump documents case. And Judge Thomas wrote a concurring opinion on Cannon’s ruling as well.
The ruling by Judge Cannon on Special Prosecutor’s case against Trump over Documents is a narrow technical ruling directed to the appointment of a special prosecutor for the purpose of lawfare without constitutional authority to do so. It compounds the previous ruling on immunity of presidents for actions in office.
Both rulings seek to preserve the established and long standing precedent that we must not cause presidents fear of doing what is necessary, nor demand that presidents be superhuman and infallible.
I concur since (and this is part of my job) the Court would prefer to accelerate the process rather than require the time and expenditure of resolving all these cases that are categorically ‘Lawfare’ and all of which violate the prohibition on prosecution of presidents by other than impeachment by the senate. I further expect the NY case that contrives a misdemeanor with no victim rarely prosecuted and if so with a fine of less than one hundred dollars, into a pretense of a felony. At that point I expect the court will see it’s duty to suppress the lawfare related to trump fulfilled, by means of technical rulings that avoid the necessity of legislation from the bench.
Unfortunately, public intellectuals, but a tiny minority of members of the legal profession (unfortunately), the commentariat, politicians, and the common people are rather uninformed and unskilled in constitutional law and the tremendous burden the court bears in preserving our rule of law by the natural law of individual sovereignty and responsibility, by tests of commonality in judgement, and concurrency in voting whether for representatives or by representatives.
The Court is attempting to reverse the abuse of the constitution, the law, and our institutions, by the postwar leftist activists use of ‘Lawfare’ – which has resulted in political division, class sex and race conflict, and what the court considers the worst of all, the combination of ‘unsettled law’ and ‘delegitimization of the branches of government’ made possible by circumvention of the demand for concurrency among the people, the states, and the legislatures.
If you do not grasp the terms ‘sovereignty of the people, not the government’, and ‘the demand for concurrency among classes and regions’, and ‘the natural law of individual sovereignty in one’s demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, and duty to commons before self’ then you do not understand the meaning of Rule of Law, Republic, or Democratic Voting within a republic, as defense of minority interests from the masses, and NOT majority rule.
Intellectually Honest Questions are Welcome.
Affections.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @rpwpb @tribelaw