Former Acting US Attorney General Sally Yates was right about not defending President Trump’s executive order but she was wrong about the reason. Acting US Attorney General Dana Boente must know the correct reason before he faces states seeking corrupt judges to contravene the United States Constitution.
Acting US Attorney General Dana Boente must decline to defend the president’s executive order because no court in this country has the constitutional authority to entertain a challenge to it.
The most powerful branch of the US government is congress and only congress is empowered by the US Constitution to impeach and try a US President for non criminal offenses. However, even congress does not have the constitutional authority to transgress the separation of powers and countermand the President of the United States of America; nor is the judicial branch so empowered.
With regard to the executive order, the judiciary must consider the merits of each litigant’s case; and any finding of an unconstitutional application of a law applies only to its application in the case before the court. Amending, expanding, repealing, invalidating or otherwise altering duly enacted legislation are not remedies at the disposal of any federal court.
It is a common misconception that the US Supreme Court is the supreme branch of government, however, the fact is the supremacy of the court resides only within the judicial branch. WE ARE ALL-POWERFUL BECAUSE WE SAY SO. . .
Boente must demand the court provide the constitutional precept or provision of the Judiciary Act which grants it jurisdiction over the office of the President of the United States. Inasmuch as it does not exist, no defense will be required; and the process to restore the separation of powers can begin.
Constitutional power is expressed; not implied. Any branch requiring powers not expressly conferred in the US Constitution can acqire them only as prescribed in Article V of the US Constitution.
Should Boente capitulate and attempt to mount a defense, the Trump administration will be mired in unconstitutional litigation for the next four years; which would make Boente’s action more harmful than Yates’ proposed inaction.