Understanding Technical Violations Of The Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute passed by legislators must be in agreement. However, there have been instances where presidents have allegedly violated the Constitution, such as in the case of former President Donald Trump, who was charged with violating federal law and conspiring against people's constitutionally protected rights. Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, argued that Trump had only committed a technical violation of the Constitution, which did not amount to a criminal act. This has sparked discussions about the definition of a technical violation and the role of the Supreme Court in upholding constitutional checks and balances.

Explore related products

Remedies for Human Rights Violations (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law, Series Number 27)

$56.46 $59

The Violation of a Constitutional Right.

$15.75

Ending Impunity for International Law Violations: Palestinian Bedouins and the Risk of Forced Displacement

$115

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Broken State, Collapse of Law, Human Rights Violations, Veil of Injustice and Constitutional Smokescreens—A Case ... against a Postcolonial Dictatorship

$3.99 $24.99

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law: Providing Justice for Corporate Human Rights Violations in Global Value Chains (Globalization: Law and Policy)

$42.55 $55.99

Unconstitutional statutes

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute must be in agreement with it. An unconstitutional statute, even if it has the form and name of law, is not a law and is wholly void and ineffective. It is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Any statute or official act that is deemed unconstitutional does not become constitutional because of a court's ruling. However, a court ruling is necessary to establish that a statute is unconstitutional.

The US Supreme Court has the duty to uphold constitutional checks and balances on the President's powers. For instance, President Trump's executive orders (EOs) targeting law firms representing clients affiliated with the Democratic Party, and requiring government contractors to disclose their affiliation with these firms, were deemed to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also made it difficult for lower courts to enforce their orders against the President's apparent overreach, by overturning temporary restraining orders on technical or procedural bases.

In the case of former President Donald Trump, his attorney, John Lauro, argued that Trump's actions regarding the Georgia secretary of state and Vice President Mike Pence were technical violations of the Constitution but did not amount to criminal acts. Lauro claimed that Trump's request to the Georgia secretary of state was an attempt to seek the truth and was not a threat.

Unconstitutional official acts

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute must be in agreement with it. An unconstitutional statute, despite bearing the appearance of law, is not a law and is wholly void and ineffective. Any act of an official in violation of the Constitution is grounds for their removal from office.

In another instance, President Trump issued several executive orders (EOs) targeting large law firms for representing clients affiliated with the Democratic Party, lawyers involved with the January 6 Committee, and former Democratic officials. These EOs stripped the security clearances of attorneys affiliated with the targeted firms and prohibited them from accessing federal buildings. The EOs also required government contractors to disclose their affiliation with these law firms, potentially resulting in the loss of government contracts. These EOs appeared to be unconstitutional and in violation of multiple sections of the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, Trump allegedly pressured former Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the results of the 2020 election, which may have been a violation of the Constitution but not a criminal act, according to his lawyer John Lauro.

It is important to note that the presence of citizens and legal residents of the United States on US territory subjects them to militia duty. This duty requires them to obey and help enforce the Constitution and constitutional official acts. If an unconstitutional act violates the rights of individuals, militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate, gather evidence, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment and prosecute the offender.

The role of federal courts

The federal judiciary is established by Article III of the US Constitution. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US, and it has the final say on whether a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the constitutional system of government. Firstly, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Secondly, it ensures that each branch of government recognizes its power limits through its power of judicial review. Thirdly, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets limits on democratic governments by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm or unduly advantage certain groups.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over almost any case involving a point of constitutional or federal law. It can choose to hear a case on appeal, and it hears about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year. The Supreme Court's most well-known power is judicial review, or the ability to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution.

The 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court are called US courts of appeals. Their task is to determine whether the law was correctly applied in the trial court or federal administrative agency. The nation's 94 district or trial courts are called US district courts, and they resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying the law to those facts.

In the case of former President Donald Trump, his criminal defense attorney, John Lauro, argued that even if Trump committed a "technical violation of the Constitution," he did not break any criminal laws. This was in reference to Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results by pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence not to certify them.

In summary, the federal courts, led by the Supreme Court, play a vital role in upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the government's actions align with it. They provide a check on the executive and legislative branches, protecting the rights and liberties of citizens.

Explore related products

Trial Court & Appeal: False Arrest, Imprisonment, and Civil Rights Violations By L.A. County: Complaint, Discovery, Court Forms & Motions, Appellate Briefs, and Writs of Mandate

$15.95

The Law Officer’s Pocket Manual, 2023 Edition

$21.97 $42.99

HOA Constitutional Government

$15.95 $15.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

TORTURERS REPORT - 2: Torture and Human Rights Violations in Turkey

$16.99

Public International Law and Human Rights Violations by Private Military and Security Companies

$94.72 $119.99

The US Supreme Court's duty

The US Supreme Court has the duty to uphold the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This means that any statute passed by legislators must be in agreement with the Constitution to be valid. If a statute violates the Constitution, it is deemed unconstitutional and is considered "no law", void, and ineffective.

In the case of former President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court had to navigate the line between fulfilling its duty to uphold the Constitution and avoiding direct confrontation with the executive branch. Trump was accused of committing "technical violations" of the Constitution, particularly in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and pressure Vice President Mike Pence not to certify them. Trump's lawyers argued that these actions did not amount to criminal acts or violations of criminal law, and the Supreme Court's conservative justices appeared to avoid direct confrontation, opting for technical and narrow procedural decisions.

The Supreme Court's duty extends beyond simply ruling on the constitutionality of statutes. They are also responsible for upholding constitutional checks and balances on the President's powers. In the case of Trump, the Court made it difficult for lower courts to enforce their orders against his apparent overreach. For example, they overturned temporary restraining orders and allowed the administration to move forward with seemingly illegal or unconstitutional actions.

The Supreme Court's role in policing the executive branch is crucial to maintaining the balance of powers and ensuring that the President's actions are within the bounds of the Constitution. While the Court has the final say on constitutional matters, it must also navigate political realities and the potential consequences of its decisions.

In summary, the US Supreme Court has a duty to uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This duty includes interpreting and ruling on the constitutionality of statutes and checking the powers of the executive branch. While the Court has the final say in constitutional matters, it must also navigate political considerations, as seen in its handling of cases involving former President Trump's alleged "technical violations" of the Constitution.

Criminal law and technical violations

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement with it. An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is not a law and is wholly void and ineffective.

Any violation of the Constitution is a serious matter. However, it is important to distinguish between technical violations and criminal violations. A technical violation of the Constitution refers to an action or official act that may go against the principles or provisions of the Constitution but does not necessarily break any criminal laws. In other words, it is a violation in a procedural sense rather than a criminal sense.

For example, in the case of former President Donald Trump, his attorneys, including John Lauro, argued that Trump's actions regarding the Georgia secretary of state and Vice President Mike Pence constituted a "technical violation" of the Constitution. They claimed that Trump's request to the Georgia secretary of state was an attempt to seek the truth and was not a threat. However, they asserted that it did not amount to a criminal act.

In another instance, President Trump issued several executive orders (EOs) targeting law firms and attorneys affiliated with the Democratic Party and those involved with the January 6 Committee. These EOs appeared to be unconstitutional and in violation of multiple sections of the Bill of Rights. However, the Supreme Court has made it difficult for lower courts to enforce their orders against Trump's apparent overreach, often ruling on technical or procedural bases without addressing the merits of the cases.

While technical violations may not always result in criminal charges, it is important to note that if a violation infringes on the rights of individuals, it is likely to be considered a crime. In such cases, citizens have a militia duty to investigate, gather evidence, make arrests, and if necessary, seek an indictment and prosecute the offender in a court of law.

Frequently asked questions