Malcolm Rivera
In May 2017, US President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. This came after Comey had requested more resources to investigate Trump's campaign's ties to Russia and after Yates instructed Justice Department lawyers not to defend Trump's travel ban. Trump's actions caused concern among Democrats and legal experts, with some declaring a constitutional crisis. However, others argued that Trump's actions were constitutional and that a constitutional crisis would depend on how the system responded to Comey's removal.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of firing | 9 May 2017 |
| Who was fired | FBI Director James Comey |
| Who fired him | US President Donald Trump |
| Reason given for firing | Comey's handling of the inquiry into Hillary Clinton's emails |
| Other reasons suspected | Comey was investigating Trump's campaign's ties to Russia |
| Previous firings | Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, US Attorney for the Southern District in New York Preet Bharara |
| Reaction | Outrage among Democrats, some of whom warned of a constitutional crisis; some Republicans also saw a constitutional crisis |
| Legal opinion | Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman, law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, and some other legal experts said Trump's actions were constitutional; some law, political science, and history professors, as well as some politicians, argued that Trump's actions were unconstitutional |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Trump's firing of Comey and Yates was not a constitutional crisis, but a political crisis
- Trump's actions were constitutional, as he has the power to fire principal officers
- Trump's actions destabilized democratic norms and the rule of law
- Trump's actions were an attempt to intimidate a witness to any future investigation
- The crisis will depend on whether the Constitution's system of checks and balances works
Trump's firing of Comey and Yates was not a constitutional crisis, but a political crisis
The firing of FBI Director James Comey by US President Donald Trump on May 9, 2017, ignited claims of a constitutional crisis. Comey had been investigating the Trump administration's ties to Russia and its interference in the 2016 US elections. Trump's dismissal of Comey, who was overseeing these investigations, mirrored former President Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." In 1973, Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate Scandal, and this led to a constitutional crisis and Nixon's eventual resignation.
Some legal scholars and politicians argued that Trump's actions constituted a constitutional crisis. They claimed that Trump's dismissal of Comey, Yates, and other officials who investigated his interests, threatened the independence of law enforcement and the rule of law. However, others disagreed, stating that Trump's actions were constitutional and did not rise to the level of a constitutional crisis. They asserted that the president has the legal authority to fire principal officers like Comey and Yates.
While the firing of Comey and Yates by Trump has been deemed a political crisis, it is not a constitutional crisis. This is because there is no dispute over Trump's legal authority to terminate their employment. A constitutional crisis occurs when there is a significant shift in the established order or a profound change in fundamental political values. It can also happen when two or more political actors strongly believe the other is violating the Constitution. In this case, Trump's actions, while controversial, did not meet these criteria.
However, it is important to note that the impact of these dismissals on the constitutional order depends on whether the system of checks and balances effectively responds to maintain the integrity of the justice system. While it is not a constitutional crisis per se, it has raised serious ethical questions and concerns about the stability of democratic norms and the rule of law in the United States.
Discovering the Residents of Emmett, Idaho's Constitution Lane
You may want to see also
Trump's actions were constitutional, as he has the power to fire principal officers
While some commentators have argued that Trump's firing of James Comey and Sally Yates constituted a constitutional crisis, others disagree. They argue that Trump's actions were constitutional, as he has the power to fire principal officers.
Under the US Constitution, the president has absolute power to fire principal officers, such as the FBI director, at will. This means that Trump's firing of Comey and Yates was within his constitutional powers. Indeed, some have argued that Trump made the "only legally correct call" in firing Comey, as he had lost the confidence of political leadership across the spectrum.
Trump cited Comey's handling of the inquiry into Hillary Clinton's emails as a reason for his firing. Comey had been criticized for his handling of the FBI's investigation into Clinton's email controversy and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, which related to alleged collusion with Trump's presidential campaign.
While Trump's actions may have been constitutional, some have expressed concern about the potential authoritarian abuse of power. They argue that Trump's actions destabilize democratic norms and the rule of law in the US. Additionally, the firing of Comey and Yates has led to calls for an impeachment investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice.
In conclusion, while Trump's firing of Comey and Yates may have been constitutional, it has sparked concerns about the potential abuse of power and the destabilization of democratic norms. The impact of these firings on the constitutional order will depend on whether the Constitution's system of checks and balances can effectively address the disturbance.
Obama's Regulatory Rollback: Unconstitutional Power Grab?
You may want to see also
Trump's actions destabilized democratic norms and the rule of law
Trump's firing of James Comey, the FBI Director, in May 2017, sparked concerns about a potential constitutional crisis. Comey was investigating the Trump administration's alleged ties to Russia and its interference in the 2016 US elections. This dismissal, along with Trump's earlier firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates and US Attorney Preet Bharara, raised questions about the stability of democratic norms and the rule of law in the US.
Some legal scholars and commentators argued that Trump's actions destabilized democratic norms and the rule of law. They saw a pattern of Trump removing officials who were investigating his interests or challenging his actions. This included Yates, who instructed Justice Department lawyers not to defend his travel ban, and Comey, who was investigating Trump's campaign ties to Russia. The timing and reasoning behind Comey's firing, in particular, caused concern.
The firing of Comey was seen by some as an attack on the independence of the FBI and a potential obstruction of justice. Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, for example, called for an impeachment investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice. Duke law professor Samuel W. Buell also noted that Trump's reference to secret tapes of conversations with Comey could be viewed as witness intimidation.
However, other legal experts and scholars disagreed, arguing that Trump's actions were constitutional and did not rise to the level of a constitutional crisis. They pointed out that the president has the absolute power to fire principal officers like Comey and that Comey had lost the confidence of political leadership across the spectrum due to his handling of the Clinton email investigation.
The impact of Comey's dismissal on the constitutional order, some argued, would depend on whether the system of checks and balances within the US government could effectively respond to this disturbance. While some saw a "'Nixonian' pattern of removing officials investigating potential wrongdoing, others believed that the situation did not yet constitute a constitutional crisis, but rather a political crisis.
In conclusion, while there were differing opinions on the severity of Trump's actions, the firing of Comey, Yates, and Bharara highlighted tensions between political actors and raised important questions about the stability of democratic norms and the rule of law in the US.
The Story Behind "Under God" in the US Pledge
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's actions were an attempt to intimidate a witness to any future investigation
On May 9, 2017, US President Donald Trump fired James Comey, the seventh director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Trump cited Comey's handling of the inquiry into Hillary Clinton's emails as a reason for his dismissal. However, at the time, Comey was investigating whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
Trump's actions were seen by some as an attempt to intimidate a witness to any future investigation. This belief was strengthened by a tweet sent by Trump on May 12, in which he implied that he might have recorded his conversations with Comey, saying:
> James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
This tweet was interpreted by many Democrats and commentators as a threat, with former federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg stating that "he's trying to affect the testimony of a witness, which you're not supposed to do." Duke law professor and former federal prosecutor Samuel W. Buell agreed, saying that Trump's attempt to quiet Comey by referencing secret tapes could be viewed as witness intimidation.
Trump's firing of Comey, and his subsequent tweets, have led to questions about whether he was attempting to obstruct justice. However, some legal experts, such as Harvard Law School professor Alex Whiting, pointed out that to violate the witness intimidation law, Trump's remarks would have to be designed to interfere with a witness's testimony. It is also worth noting that Comey was not easily intimidated, given his position and career in law enforcement.
In addition to Comey, Trump also fired former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, further fueling speculation about an emerging pattern of Trump firing government officials who investigated his interests. Despite this, some sources stated that Comey's termination was unavoidable, as he had lost the confidence of political leadership on all sides.
While Trump's actions were seen by some as an attempt to intimidate a witness, it is important to note that the interpretation of his actions and their legality are subject to debate.
New Constitution: Support or Opposition?
You may want to see also
The crisis will depend on whether the Constitution's system of checks and balances works
The firing of James Comey, the FBI director, by US President Donald Trump in May 2017, sparked concerns about a potential constitutional crisis. Comey was investigating the Trump administration's alleged ties to Russia and possible collusion in the 2016 US elections. This incident, along with the firing of Sally Yates and Preet Bharara, raised questions about the motivation behind the dismissals and the potential implications for the nation.
While some commentators and legal experts viewed the situation as a constitutional crisis, others disagreed. Those who saw a crisis unfolding argued that Trump's actions destabilized democratic norms and the rule of law. They compared the situation to the "Saturday Night Massacre" of 1973, when President Richard Nixon fired officials investigating the Watergate Scandal, ultimately leading to his resignation.
However, constitutional law experts pointed out that Trump's actions were within his constitutional powers as the president has the authority to fire principal officers like the FBI director. They argued that the situation did not rise to the level of a constitutional crisis, as there was no dispute over Trump's legal authority to dismiss Comey.
The impact of Comey's dismissal on the constitutional order depends on whether the Constitution's system of checks and balances works effectively. A constitutional crisis occurs when there is a significant shift in the government's functioning, shaking the established order. It can happen suddenly or gradually and is characterized by a breakdown in the system of checks and balances.
In the case of Comey's firing, the system of checks and balances could come into play through oversight in Congress and the courts reviewing challenges to Trump's policies. Congress and the White House have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the Department of Justice and the federal judicial system following Comey's removal. The crisis, if it occurs, will depend on how the system responds to Comey's dismissal and whether the nation can navigate through the disturbance.
The Constitution: A Living Document, How?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The firing of FBI Director James Comey by President Trump in May 2017 was seen as a constitutional crisis by some as Comey was investigating the president at the time. However, others argue that Trump's actions were entirely constitutional as he has the power to fire principal officers.
A constitutional crisis occurs when there is a significant shift in the government's established order, which can happen suddenly or gradually.
A constitutional crisis can lead to social dissolution and the disintegration of the rule of law, endangering the country and its citizens.
Legal experts are divided on whether the firing of Comey and Yates constitutes a constitutional crisis. Some argue that it does, citing concerns about the independence and rule of law, while others claim it is a political crisis as there is no dispute over Trump's legal authority to fire them.
The "Saturday Night Massacre" refers to an incident in 1973 when President Nixon fired a succession of leaders in the Justice Department to shield himself from the Watergate investigation. Some commentators drew parallels between Nixon's actions and Trump's firing of Comey, Yates, and Bharara, who were all involved in investigating Trump's interests.
