"When DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding"

[whttevrr]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pRMwDMJQtUTt6I7i1LZJ5_XeERAeetvj/view

Indeed, when DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards.

In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation’s founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 120 (1976). Thus, when presented with a case or controversy, it is the Judiciary’s duty under the Constitution to interpret the law and to declare government overreaches unlawful.

Case 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ Document 46 Filed 11/25/19 Page 6 of 120

[whttevrr]

1. just doing a word search for "must" and finding interesting points.

[whttevrr]

2. just as with Harriet Miers before him, Donald McGahn "must appear before the Committee

Accordingly, just as with Harriet Miers
before him, Donald McGahn “must appear before the Committee to provide testimony,
and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.” Id. at 106.

[whttevrr]

3. With respect to the merits of the contention that McGahn has absolute testimonial immunity,

With respect to the merits of the contention that McGahn has absolute testimonial immunity, the Judiciary Committee argues that there is no support for such a claim anywhere in the caselaw (see id. at 39–45), and that McGahn must instead appear before the Judiciary Committee (see id. at 54).

[whttevrr]

4. DOJ must also face at least two other inconvenient facts:

DOJ must also face at least two other inconvenient facts: the widely accepted contentions that (1) the Constitution of the United States empowers each branch of the federal government to be a check upon the others, and (2) the Judiciary’s constitutional check is the power to tell the other branches what the law is.

[whttevrr]

5. V. CONCLUSION

Case 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ Document 46 Filed 11/25/19 Page 118 of 120

V. CONCLUSION
The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men. The Constitution and federal law set the boundaries of what is acceptable conduct, and for this reason, as explained above, when there is a dispute between the Legislature and the Executive branch over what the law requires about the circumstances under which government officials must act, the Judiciary has the authority, and the responsibility, to decide the issue.

Moreover, as relevant here, when the issue in dispute is whether a government official has the duty to respond to a subpoena that a duly authorized committee of the House of Representatives has issued pursuant to its Article I authority, the official’s defiance unquestionably inflicts a cognizable injury on Congress, and thereby, substantially harms the national interest as well. These injuries give rise to a right of a congressional committee to seek to vindicate its constitutionally conferred investigative power in the context of a civil action filed in court.

[whttevrr]

6. What is your keyword or phrase search?

Word searchable PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pRMwDMJQtUTt6I7i1LZJ5_XeERAeetvj/view

"must"

"shall"

Forget "constitution" there are 157 instances of that word.

[Pepsidog]

7. What a great opinion in defense of everything we know about separation of powers. As an attorney,

I would refuse to advance the absurd arguments of the DOJ and Trump’s lawyers. They should all be sanctioned for knowingly making ridiculous arguments that they know to be wrong. Any attorney working on these cases whether for DOJ or Trump knew the arguments they advanced were not rooted in good faith and they should be held accountable for their unethical conduct in their perversion of the Constitution and casting the legal profession in such a poor light. No Federal judge should ever have to write a decision like this.