This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith is one of the leftists assembled by Democrats across Washington – and America – to pursue President Donald Trump with a variety of charges in what appears to be an election strategy of jailing him so he can't be re-elected in 2024.
Smith has claimed Trump interfered with the 2020 election with his comments and actions, to which Trump has claimed immunity for actions and statements while he was in office as president. It's pending, with Smith's attack on Trump's immunity status at the Supreme Court.
But now a brief filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of a former U.S. attorney general, Edwin Meese, and other constitutional scholars, has thrown Smith a curve.
The brief charges that Smith's appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional, so the high court must reject his campaign against Trump.
A report at Breitbart explains, "Their amicus (or 'friend of the court') brief argues that Smith lacks authority to represent the United States by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in (called a petition for certiorari) because the office he holds has not been created by Congress and his appointment violates the 'Appointments Clause' of the Constitution."
The report said Joe Biden's AG, Merrick Garland, improperly appointed Smith "to an office that does not exist with authority Garland does not possess."
Meese was joined in the brief by Steven Calabresi of the Federalist Society and Gary Lawson, a prominent constitutional law professor.
They point out that constitutionally, only Congress can create federal offices like the one attached to the paycheck Smith now gets from taxpayers. And Congress has not done that.
In fact, the Constitution requires such offices to be "established by law," and there was a law providing for "independent counsels," but it expired decades ago.
Breitbart reported the lawyers explained, "Garland cannot hire a mere employee to perform tasks that Congress has not authorized."
"Only an 'officer' can be given that level of authority, the report said.
No act of Congress has allowed Garland to give Smith all the powers that he apparently is using," the filing said.
The Supreme Court was told, "Even if one somehow thinks that existing statutes authorize the appointment of stand-alone special counsels with the full power of a U.S. attorney, Smith was not properly appointed to such an 'office.'"
If fact, they charge that such positions would need to be nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate.
The brief told the nine justices, "Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos."
The report found that such a result would mean the Supreme Court not only should refuse Smith's agenda against Trump, but lower federal courts would need to dismiss all of Smith's claims.
Meese was attorney general for President Ronald Reagan.
