Landmark Legal Foundation Challenges Jack Smith’s Appointment As Unconstitutional

If successful, it throws everything he's brought against Trump into doubt

Wes WalkerMarch 28, 2024

0 117 3 minutes read

Jack Smith has been nothing if not an ‘outside the box’ prosecutor willing to run with completely unproven legal theories in chasing his prey… but was his appointment ‘outside the box’ as well?

Said differently, is he operating within the bounds of legitimate constitutional authority, or is he in a very real sense, a rogue prosecutor?

Landmark Legal Foundation is filing an amicus brief claiming that is exactly what Jack Smith is.

Why does this matter? Well, if he has no legitimacy, neither does ANY of the legal action he has been orchestrating against Donald Trump.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Yes

Game. Set. Match.

Landmark Legal Foundation files brief challenging the unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel in the documents case. Read all about it!https://t.co/wh70nyGOcH

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 28, 2024

Seeing how excited the left has been about bringing the documents case against Trump this could be a huge development.

The table of contents from the brief gives a window into where they are headed with their arguments:

The guy presenting the case is no lightweight either. He is an expert with the particular specialty of Constitutional questions about qualifications for office, including caselaw on special prosecutors.

If there’s anyone qualified to speak with expertise on this issue, it would be him… and in his opinion, Smith does not meet the criteria necessary to be appointed as a Special Counsel.

Unlike other examples of Special Counsel where someone already invested with authority after passing through the advise-and-consent process in the Senate, Smith was not already serving in such a role when he was called upon for this task. He was appointed to address a specific issue, and will no longer have any role in the government once this task is resolved.

That creates a conflict. By that definition, he does not meet the criteria of ‘officer’ of the court. At best, he is an employee. Such an employee has not authority to wield powers that are constitutionally reserved for inferior officers of the United States, in this case, the powers of a United States Attorney.

It is a violation of the Supreme Court’s Appointments Clause.

One of the more interesting — and important — points in this brief is this one:

The implication is that even if his actions as taken until today are kept intact (which is by no means a certainty), he will by no means be able to exercise them moving forward under his own authority. If the judge accepts the logic of this brief, Smith would be obligated to subordinate himself to someone who HAS the sort of legitimate authority to take such actions. In this instance, under the supervison of the duly-appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Markenzy Lapointe.

The brief’s conclusion was interesting, too. Short and to the point:

You can find the entire 27 page brief here.

Cross-posted with Clash Daily

Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW! Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, SocialCross, Speak Your Mind Here, and Gab. You can also follow us on Truth Social here, Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

Give a middle finger to unaccountable global censors and big tech fascists. Bookmark this site, sign up for our newsletter, and check back often.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views: