Cites are always appreciated:
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/24/fcc-dei-media-mergers-trump
Fifth amendment addition:
Attempt to fire a Fed governor without Due Process Ref
Fifth amendment addition:
Firing of a US Attorney who declined to prosecute Letitia James, on the basis of a lack of evidence of any crime to charge. Ref
This breaks due process twice. Once for attempting to prosecute a person, despite a lack of evidence, and 2ndly to obstruct justice in trying to prevent James (or anyone else) from prosecuting the False Electors scheme.
The Electors scheme, of course, falls under a different area of the Constitution but we’re adding violations faster than I can even get through the Bill of Rights, let alone start getting into the main parts of the Constitution itself…
Pretty sure he’s supposed to get Congressional approval prior to murdering people in the Carribean.
Ummm … isn’t the 5th Amendment about criminal charges and not employment?
Those are not Due Process issues.
Given the War Powers Act, maybe not.
I’ll double-check. Some of the firings are to prevent investigations, or to force an investigation where none is merited, and those do safely fall under the 5th Amendment.
In the case of the Fed governor, I think that I was thinking along the lines that they’re arguing that she’s a criminal who lied on her mortgage application (if I recall correctly), and thus deserves to be removed. The former hasn’t actually happened.
So, granted, this falls more under the heading of the Take Care clause of the main body of the Constitution but I think that was my thinking. You’re treating someone as a criminal, without even a trial.
As an aside, I’ll note that I’m perfectly fine with removing all partisan cranks in official positions who have been proved guilty of committing fraud on financial documents.
If my cashier steals from the till (and assuming it is not in Montana), do I need to conduct a formal investigation or wait for a guilty conviction in court before I can fire them?
How so? You might be making an equal protection argument but that’s the 14th Amendment.
If you’re a shop front, you can tell people that they’re not allowed in unless they sign up with Jesus. Clearly, the US government can’t do that.
The Bill of Rights applies to the US government, not to private businesses. So this isn’t to say that my interpretation is correct - it might still be wrong - just that your example would fall under a different framework. We need to stick with the US government.
If the US government is predicating her removal on the fact of her criminality - when there is no criminality - then there’s an argument that they’re breaking the the 5th Amendment. It’s a loose one, to be sure, but it could be made. If, on the other hand, they allege that - upon inspection - there’s reason to suspect that she might have committed fraud and so they’re firing her, then there’s no 5th Amendment complaint. They’re not saying that she is a criminal, just that they have insufficient confidence to feel that the risk is worth continuing to retain her in her position.
You might think of it like a news article saying, “That man is a crook”, versus “The prosecutor alleges criminal behavior by the man”. Outside of a court, those might be just as well as makes no difference about the same statement. Inside a court, one is defamation and the other is not. In a particular context, it’s not just splitting hairs.
If the government is taking actions, predicated on the factuality of a criminal conviction that doesn’t exist, then she’s being treated as a criminal without the due process of law.
As I said earlier, the whole purpose of the 5th Amendment is to ban politicized and non-evidence based use of the criminal justice system. Minus that fear, and there wouldn’t be such an amendment.
Still hoping to work through the Bill of Rights but here’s one for the Presidential Oath from the Constitution:
The Oath is probably where the current President would find himself with the longest and strongest list of complaints - specifically, the “Take Care” clause that demands that the President faithfully execute the laws that have been passed by Congress.
I found this very encouraging… but we all still have work to do: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/19/american-democracy-resilience-00548910