The entire country is now paying attention to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Trump v. Slaughter. The case concerns the removal by President Donald Trump of a Federal Trade Commission member, two of them, actually, who are affiliated with the Democrat Party.

During oral arguments this week, a wave of panic of sorts swept over the entire right, with many wondering whether Joe Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even understands Article II of the Constitution.

Article II of the Constitution

Without giving you a full-on lecture about the Constitution, I will try to give you a quick summary of the relevant portions for those not already aware of how Article II reads.

The meat of the article creates accountability for our government by granting essential authority to the sitting president of the United States. This is made very clear in Article II, Section I, which states, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Whether there is a so-called “independent” board, council, or committee involved, the buck ultimately stops with the president.

This was put in place to prevent our government from turning into a bureaucracy, which results from the installation of permanent fixtures who are protected and immune from accountability to the electorate.

Per Article II, Section III, it is the responsibility of the president to oversee these officials, not just sign laws and hand off their execution to those who have been put in place administratively. Section III clearly states, "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

The point is, if the president is not happy with how such officials are executing their duties, he should have the right to replace them, as long as he does so within the guidelines that have been set.

I don’t see it that way

Justice Jackson, somehow, does not interpret Article II that way, or she simply has never read it, which is what it sounds like to me.

While discussing the president’s authority during oral arguments, she stated, “My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters -- with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have.”

She continued, “So, having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control.”

Needless to say, Jackson’s views came under attack from just about everyone on the right. This is not about whether she agrees with Trump’s appointments, and she clearly seemed to be making a political statement with her snide comment about “people who don’t know anything” comment.

No independent agencies

Today, National Review published a great response to Jackson’s line of questioning during oral arguments in the case, and it is definitely worth a read when you have about five minutes to fully digest it.

After discussing how “Constitutional mischief” has taken place over the years, including the promotion of the concept of a “living Constitution,” the piece stated, “How can the president exercise 'the executive power of the United States,' vested in him by Article II, if he cannot fire people who exercise executive power in ways opposed to his policies?"

It continued, “How can he carry out his duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if others are free to disregard those laws he aims to enforce? To whom can the people complain if the executive job is not done, or done badly, if not the executive?”

The idea of “deep state” within the government is rooted in bureaucrats taking over power and undermining both the president and Congress, basically, everyone who is elected by the people. Sadly, that is what Jackson is recommending. So, as I stated, she is either ignorant of Article II’s true meaning or she simply does not care to understand it and wants to give the deep state far more power than the president of the United States. That may be okay with the left, but it surely will not sit well with the right in this country.