Josh Blackman holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, and is the author of An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Fortunately for Bragg, there are good reasons to conclude that the elected president was not an “officer of the United States.”
How does the authority Attorney General William Barr used to appoint John Durham compare with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017?
Right now, the Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act may seem like a prudent idea. But the new bill would have dangerous ramifications for American politics moving forward.
If adopted by the House of Representatives, the theory that President Trump engaged in bribery by pushing Ukraine for an investigation into Burisma could have consequences for the separation of powers.
Shortly after the special counsel’s report was released, I wrote three posts on Lawfare criticizing Robert Mueller’s constitutional analysis.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report found that the federal obstruction of justice statutes can apply to the president, even though the statute did not expressly state that it applies to the president. Robert Mueller chose not to apply the avoidance canon known as the “clear statement” rule. Previously, I have argued that his decision was inconsistent with precedent from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report found that the federal obstruction of justice statutes can apply to the president, even though the statutes do not state this expressly. Robert Mueller chose not to apply the avoidance canon known as the “clear statement” rule. In a recent Lawfare post, I argued that this decision was inconsistent with precedent from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).