QUESTION: Your argument on the Commerce Clause is spot on, I imagine. Why do the legal professionals concerned within the Colorado case eradicating Trump doesn’t grasp the construction of the Structure as you do? They admit that ruling in favor of Colorado would end in nationwide chaos. Your evaluation of the Commerce Clause demonstrates that the writers of the Structure understood such a end result would break the union. Any touch upon this oversight could be tremendously appreciated.
ANSWER: Generally, legal professionals focus too intently as a result of statutory legislation is wordsmithing. They’re arguing if Trump is an officer when they need to be the subject material jurisdiction of the legislation. I’ve needed to examine legislation from a world perspective, its evolution from historical instances to the current. Continental Europe adopted Canon Legislation, whereas England created Widespread Legislation. There are big variations equivalent to beneath French legislation, not even your brother-in-law might be compelled to testify in opposition to you, whereas beneath English Widespread Legislation, the king is ruthless, so the one one with such a privilege is a partner. They’ll throw your kids in jail on contempt till they testify in opposition to a guardian. We don’t respect the household unit, whereas, beneath Canon Legislation, anybody associated by marriage is roofed.
I used to be so appalled that the oral arguments have been targeted on wordsmithing I made a decision to submit my very own Amicus Curiae transient. The Court docket isn’t supposed to boost an argument that’s not offered. They’ll most likely reject it as a result of it was after oral argument. But when they need a clear escape that’s constitutionally right quite than not addressing the difficulty straight, then simply possibly they may make an exception and settle for a Professional Se Amicus. It could be a primary, anyway.