Epstein Secrets

is a red herring. Also, the canon of constitutional avoidance does not apply here because the CVRA is plain and unambiguous. See United States v. Stevens 559 U.S. 460, 481, 130 S. Ct 1577, 1591-92, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (providing that courts cannot "rely upon the canon of construction that 'ambigu

r in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has long been regarded as [within] the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' " (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3)). This Executive Bra

opinion invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance, it does not apply here because there is no ambiguity in the CVRA text. See United States v. Stevens. 559 U.S. 460, 481, 130 S. Ct. 1577. 1591-92. 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (providing that courts cannot 'rely upon the canon of construction that 'ambig

resolution of this petition for a writ of mandamus would not change. Moreover, ow opinion about pre-charge *1272 rights would not be binding on the Executive in the same way that the opinions about pension requests were not binding in? I He/Aunts Case. B. We Construe Statutes by Reading the Whole Text,

r be reviewed de novo, it determined that appellate courts thereafter would apply a "reasonableness" standard of review. According to Justice Stevens, the Court "expressly equated" reasonableness review "with the old abuse-of-discretion standard used to review sentencing departures." 1?i

mmerce Clause. As pointed out by the Government, the Su- preme Court once remarked in a case in- volving the delegation of legislative power to the Executive that "(t)he broad state- ment that the federal government can exer- cise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and suc