Mike CernovichVerified account

Hi! Raise your hand if you know I am a published constitutional law scholar and that my legal scholarship has been cited in federal court opinions. 90% of you don't know. Now let's talk some Con Law and how law professors are preying on people's ignorance re: Mueller / Trump.

The Constitution vests powers into three separate but co-equal branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The powers of the respective branches of government are enumerated in Articles I, II, and II in the Constitution itself.

Article 2 of the Constitution provides, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The power to prosecute is an executive power. That’s why the President appoints federal prosecutors in each district.

To understand the role of separated powers plays, think of it like this: Congress writes the laws that define crimes, which the President signs. The Executive branch enforces those laws. And the Judiciary interprets them.

If you’re pulled over with a brick of marijuana in your car, you’ll be prosecuted by DOJ (Executive) because transporting marijuana is a crime (the body of laws written by the Legislative branch). A judge will determine whether the law is constitutional (Article III).

“But it’s undemocratic that Trump can’t be indicted,” you might say. Trump is an elected official. Mueller was not elected. How would it be democratic for an unelected official to disrupt the ability of the highest elected official to govern?

The obstruction of justice paradox. The power to prosecute resides within the Presidency. How then could you obstruct your own investigation?

Imagine Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS. A US Attorney in Iowa, looking to make a name for herself, decides to indict Clinton for various crimes. Would that be democratic?