Simone Lawson
There has been much debate over whether Mueller, an employee of the executive branch, should be protected by Congress. Mueller's investigation falls under the supervision of the Department of Justice and, therefore, the President of the United States. However, some have argued that a bill to protect Mueller is necessary to safeguard the integrity of democracy. Republicans have claimed that such a bill would be unconstitutional, but constitutional scholars have argued that this is not the case.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Mueller's investigation | Falls under the supervision of the Department of Justice and, therefore, the President of the United States |
| Bill to protect Mueller | Republicans claim it is unconstitutional |
| Constitutional scholars disagree | |
| The bill is less expansive than the independent counsel law passed after Watergate | |
| The bill is necessary for maintaining the integrity of democracy |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
$1.99 $12.95
What You'll Learn
- The bill to protect Mueller is unconstitutional
- The bill to protect Mueller is constitutional
- Mueller's investigation falls under the supervision of the President of the United States
- The bill to protect Mueller restricts the president's rightful power
- The bill to protect Mueller gives too much leeway to prosecutors
The bill to protect Mueller is unconstitutional
The bill to protect Mueller has been deemed unconstitutional by some Republicans. They argue that prosecution is a “core executive function” and that the bill would restrict the president’s rightful power and give too much leeway to prosecutors. However, constitutional scholars have argued that these fears are overblown and that the bill is necessary to maintain the integrity of democracy. They point out that the Mueller bill is less expansive than the independent counsel law passed after Watergate and that it is in line with a long tradition of recognising the constitutionality of laws that protect core government functions from presidential abuse.
Mueller is an employee of the executive branch, specifically the U.S. Department of Justice. His investigation falls under the supervision of the department and, therefore, the President of the United States. Some argue that protecting Mueller from Trump would strip the chief executive of powers granted to him in Article II of the Constitution. However, others argue that the bill is necessary to ensure that someone like Trump cannot bully his way out of accountability.
The bill, known as The Special Counsel and Integrity Act, was proposed after President Trump announced the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as the acting attorney general. Whitaker had previously expressed skepticism about Mueller’s probe, leading to concerns that Mueller’s job is in jeopardy.
While there are differing opinions on the constitutionality of the bill to protect Mueller, it is clear that the issue is a complex and highly debated one.
Aliens' Rights: Are They Protected by the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
The bill to protect Mueller is constitutional
The bill to protect Mueller and the Trump-Russia investigation has been deemed constitutional by legal scholars. The bill is less expansive than the independent counsel law passed after Watergate, and conservative legal scholars sympathetic to Scalia believe it to be constitutional. The Supreme Court has a long tradition of recognising the constitutionality of laws that protect core government functions from presidential abuse.
The bill is necessary to maintain the integrity of democracy and to ensure that public officials work in the public interest. Even in a democracy, no official can simply be trusted to do the right thing. The bill provides a safeguard for Mueller's investigation and helps to insulate presidential investigators outside the Justice Department, protecting prosecutorial independence.
Some have argued that the bill is unconstitutional because prosecution is a "core executive function". However, this argument has been refuted by constitutional scholars, who point out that Scalia was a sole dissenter in Morrison, with the rest of the Supreme Court upholding the independent prosecutor law.
Mueller is an employee of the executive branch, specifically the U.S. Department of Justice. His investigation falls under the supervision of the department and, therefore, the President of the United States. However, this does not mean that he does not need protection from potential presidential abuse. The bill to protect Mueller is a necessary and constitutional measure to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the democracy.
Constitution's Role in Safeguarding Public Health Explored
You may want to see also
Mueller's investigation falls under the supervision of the President of the United States
Some have argued that a bill to protect Mueller is unconstitutional, as prosecution is a "core executive function". However, others have argued that the bill is constitutionally sound and necessary for maintaining the integrity of democracy.
The Mueller bill is less expansive than the independent counsel law passed after Watergate, and even conservative legal scholars sympathetic to Scalia believe it to be constitutional.
Passing the bill to safeguard Mueller's investigation would add to a long tradition of recognising the constitutionality of laws that sought to protect core government functions from presidential abuse.
Satanists and the Constitution: Freedom of Religion in America
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$7.29 $12.99
The bill to protect Mueller restricts the president's rightful power
The bill to protect Mueller has been criticised by Republicans who claim that it is unconstitutional. They argue that it restricts the president's rightful power and gives too much leeway to prosecutors. However, constitutional scholars have argued that these fears are overblown. The Mueller bill is less expansive than the independent counsel law passed after Watergate, and even conservative legal scholars sympathetic to Scalia believe it to be constitutional.
The bill is necessary to safeguard Mueller's investigation and maintain the integrity of democracy. Mueller's investigation falls under the supervision of the Department of Justice and, therefore, the President of the United States. However, there are concerns that the President could abuse his power and bully his way out of accountability. The bill is a check to ensure that public officials work in the public interest.
Some have argued that Mueller doesn't need to be protected by Congress. He is an employee of the executive branch and his investigation falls under the supervision of the Department of Justice. However, others argue that this supervision is exactly why Mueller needs protection. The Department of Justice, and by extension the President, could interfere with Mueller's investigation and prevent him from doing his job independently.
The bill to protect Mueller is constitutionally sound and does not restrict the president's rightful power. It is a necessary measure to ensure that the President cannot abuse his power and that Mueller can carry out his investigation independently.
School Board Oath: Protecting Constitution and Students
You may want to see also
The bill to protect Mueller gives too much leeway to prosecutors
The Mueller bill seeks to protect the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his investigation into the Trump-Russia probe. Mueller is an employee of the executive branch, specifically the US Department of Justice, and his investigation falls under the supervision of the department and, therefore, the President of the United States. However, there have been concerns that Mueller's job is in jeopardy due to the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as the acting attorney general. Whitaker has expressed skepticism about Mueller's investigation, and as such, there are fears that the president may abuse his power to bully his way out of accountability.
The bill to protect Mueller is not without its critics, however. Some argue that it restricts the president's rightful power and gives too much leeway to prosecutors. Sen. Orrin Hatch, for example, has argued that the proposed bill is unconstitutional because prosecution is a “core executive function”. This argument directly echoes Scalia, although it is worth noting that Scalia was a sole dissenter in Morrison, with the rest of the Supreme Court voting to uphold the independent prosecutor law.
Despite these arguments, the bill to protect Mueller is constitutionally sound and necessary to ensure that public officials work in the public interest. The law must be strong enough to hold those in power accountable and to prevent any official from abusing their position. While a more long-term fix that insulates presidential investigators outside the Justice Department would be optimal, the current bill is sufficient to address the emergency situation at hand.
Student Dress Code: Freedom of Expression in Schools?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the Mueller bill is constitutional. It is less expansive than the independent counsel law passed after Watergate, and conservative legal scholars believe it to be constitutional.
The Mueller bill is necessary to safeguard Mueller's investigation into the Trump-Russia scandal. It is also necessary to maintain the integrity of democracy.
Mueller is an employee of the executive branch – specifically, the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Republican opposition to the Mueller bill is that it restricts the president's rightful power and gives too much leeway to prosecutors.
The Democratic argument for the Mueller bill is that it is constitutionally sound and necessary to ensure that public officials work in the public interest.
