Jim Jordan Is 'Violating' This Constitutional Amendment: Kirschner
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan may be violating an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in his effort to investigate Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, according to legal analyst Glenn Kirschner.
Jordan, an Ohio Republican representative, has been engaged in a back-and-forth conflict with Bragg in the wake of the latter issuing the first-ever indictment of a former president against Donald Trump. Jordan has sought to call witnesses to testify about Bragg's conduct in leading the investigation, and is also set to hold a "field hearing" in New York City on Monday focused on what he characterized as Bragg's alleged failure to prosecute other crimes in the city.
In response, Bragg last week filed a lawsuit against Jordan for what he called an "unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack" on his office by a member of Congress. Echoing sentiments shared by numerous legal experts, Bragg argued in the suit that Jordan has "no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions" and "no legitimate legislative purpose" for issuing subpoenas for testimony related to his office.
Kirschner, a veteran federal prosecutor and outspoken critic of far-right political figures, has espoused similar legal theories in the past, arguing that Jordan's attempt to investigate Bragg violated a New York State law prohibiting individuals from interfering in an official proceeding. During the Saturday episode of his podcast, Justice Matters, Kirschner also argued that Jordan's actions represent a violation of the 10th Amendment.
"He also happens to be violating the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment," Kirschner argued. "Because the federal government has zero authority to interfere in a state court prosecution. That's just not one of the powers enumerated to the federal government by the United States Constitution."
As laid out by the 10th Amendment, all "powers not delegated" to the federal government of the United States are reserved for the individual states, so long as the powers are not also expressively prohibited from the states by the Constitution. The principle of this amendment is often referred to as "state's rights" and has been invoked and defended frequently by Republicans like Jordan over the course of the two centuries since the Constitution was written.
In response to a Newsweek inquiry about the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Jordan directed to a tweet from the congressman's official Twitter account, in which he characterized it as an attempt to deflect oversight into the office's use of federal funds.
"First, they indict a president for no crime," Jordan tweeted. "Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it."
Bragg's office has said on multiple occasions, however, that no federal funds were used to conduct the investigation into Trump.
Newsweek reached out to Jordan's office for comment via email.
