Totally agree, it's long been considered that if a 'crime' is applicable the only remedy is impeachment if it's a sitting President.
Totally agree, it's long been considered that if a 'crime' is applicable the only remedy is impeachment if it's a sitting President.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
"....“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale recently commented...."
Realy?
the thing is, I still don't see in the constitution where this non-prosecutable "executive" concept is stated explicitly OR "implicitly".
Any quotes from the Constitution or the framers to go with that?
Implicitly speaking it seems pretty self-evident that the framers never meant for ANY person... no matter what the office... to be above the law.
In rejecting a monarchy, all of it's trappings and implied tyrannical powers and expecting the president to be a "civil servant", I'm not sure how anyone can HONESTLY say that a sitting president CAN NOT be indicted and prosecuted under any number of U.S. laws.
The general spirit of the revolution points FAR more clearly to THAT interpretation than this idea that a sitting president has some REAL built in penumbra of legal immunity.
I'd be FAR more comfortable with this type of talk if folks just said something like..."...look I don't like the idea of the leader of the country being prosecuted for crimes, it makes the country look bad and undermines the perceived authority of the office. And maybe even makes the office vulnerable to petty partisan legal attacks that would be an undue distraction...."I get that. I'd still disagree on constitutional grounds but i'd be open to an amendment that blocked petty or thin legal attacks on ALL presidents WHILE in office. but this idea that the Framers Implied or the constitution suggest it is BS. And makes the dialogue a dishonest one from the start.
And also there's the partisans aspect of this. It seems to me that both sides are READY to indict, prosecute and/or impeach the other at the drop of a hat. But when their guy is in, then there's a sense of outrage at WHY ANYONE would try to disrupt "the OFFICE".
As a practical matter, I think that most people FEEL like the president is like a temporary king of America. And they don't FEEL right seeing him in handcuffs or going to court or going to jail. And as far as the people in Congress go they enjoy a certain assumed immunity to prosecution and looking the other way over their corruption and horrors, so it doesn't really help them to make an example of the President over various issues.
So IMO THAT's REALY WHY a sitting president will never be indicted for anything really.
Last edited by revelarts; 06-21-2017 at 08:11 AM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
I think it comes down to the practicality of the outcome. If indicted how could he govern while the process drags on? How to ensure a fair trial? A jury not influenced by politics? It's not like he can be arrested for speeding, whether by car or horse. Things like the emoluments or obstruction are not going to result in fines and having a license revoked.
Impeachment process is the one most fitting for the president, IF there's a bases to the charges. In this case, like the calls for impeaching Bush or Obama, there just is no there, there. At least yet.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Well maybe HE SHOULDN't govern while a trail was going on. Maybe the VICE president should step in?
As far as a fair trial goes. Sure there NO DOUBT that partisan feelings would be on the parts of all involved.
but it goes to the other part of my contention that a CiC probably should not be subject to petty crimes charges.
But practically speaking I suspect that if a president was caught on TV shooting a kid on the side of the road that gave him the finger THEN he might go to jail... MAYBE.
but barring something as blatant as that.
I doubt it.
Even then the president supporters would dig up every excuse ...in and out of the book... as to why the president was completely justified in shooting the kid
As we see with many of the police cases, some people are just assumed above the law no matter what
And I contend that for Both Bush and Obama there was plenty of "there there" constitutionally speaking they both BROKE the LAW. In several ways including warrantless spying and by illegally overstepping their constitutional authority in many other venues.
And both also broke the Geneva conventions and our own torture treaty and torture laws.
That's plenty of there for anyone who's being objective.
But people would rather make excuses why the Constitution shouldn't be adhered to or somehow doesn't apply ...because xyz.. when their guy does it.
Last edited by revelarts; 06-21-2017 at 08:15 AM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
I agree with your purity, my response was in practicality. As for 'my guy,' I doubt we could be further on that then the current president. If you recall, I pretty much responded to calls for Obama's impeachment with the query, "For what?"
I think a president that shot someone on tv would probably face repercussions less it were in self-defense. Absent something along those lines, the political process of impeachment and conviction is probably the best way.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
I do recall, you've been consistent in your view here.
I respect that.
of course it'd be self-defense.
c'mon anyone could see that the president thought that the middle finger was a gun. DUH! And the GOOD experts agreeso case closed.
Plus it should be against the law to disrespect a president. And did you know that the kid had a record of Smoking pot and drinking, and associated with motorcycle gangs (or Muslims or Russians or the KKK or BLM)? so there's that...and all of the other factors of presidential stress and threats on his life earlier thatyear.. etc etc
so bottom line, WHAT good would it do the country? it's time for the country to "move on"
like i said "maybe"
Last edited by revelarts; 06-21-2017 at 08:43 AM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16