Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome.
The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need, the committee can satisfy neither condition here and that should decide this case. The committees contend of the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has applied to congressional subpoenas. But their arguments would render those limits meaningless
Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome.
Religion. In this country, it is not the department of judges, juries or government officials twere goveo decide who ought to teach catholic fifthgraders that jesus is the son of god or who ought to teach jewish preschoolers what it means to say here israel the lord your god and fun and that is what these cases are about is who controls and who teaches the faith. The answer is easy, churches misuse thoseth who teach their faith. Indeed it ispo one of the most important religious functions for any community. Passing the faith onto the next generation. With the churchs primary agents for teaching to fifthgraders teaching them for hours a week much more than parish priests, they fall within the exception of the community. Respondents would have the court ignorcourts ignore all that substituting the standard on first and foremost the title to determine whether the exception applies. That would elevate the form and force judges to decide what is religious enough to qualify and it would help
Of church and state means anything at all, it must mean the government cannot interfere with the churchs decisions about who is authorized to teach its religion. In this country, it is not the province of justice, juries or Government Official to decide who will teach catholic fifthgraders, or who want to teach Jewish School is what it means to say here, o israel, the lord is one. That is what these cases are about. Who controls who teaches the faith schoolchildren. The answer is easy. Churches must choose those who teach their faith. That is one of the most important religious functions for any religious community. Pass anaphase onto the next generation. Since it teachers with the church. Primary agents for teaching the catholic faith to fifthgraders, much more, they fall within the exception immunity. Less fondant would have accorded court ignore all that. Substituting a standard that relies on the title to determine whether there is an exception. That would wrongly elevate form over