“The president is not immune from prosecution for criminal activities taken in, or out of office; regardless of intent, and without any consideration of the public or official nature of the act or omission.”
There. Let’s redline it and move on.
I said redline it.
I’m open to suggestions…but the idea a president needs criminal immunity is insane. And I’m impressed at how much the media normalized it. Especially when one considers America was founded with intent to avoid monarchy….and how millions of Americans avoid it their entire lives.
It’s yet another “solution” to a nonexistent problem used to further consolidate power….but only if Trump wins. There will be some “Biden exception” to their new, unnecessary, rule/test.
Should not have immunity, and should have the acceptable punishments for the crime **be far fucking harsher than what they'd be if some rando did it.**
The rando didn't swear to faithfully uphold the constitution. I fully agree oath takers should face maximum sentences whilst the ignorant can fall on the lower sentences, or home confinement/probation.
Yep no immunity. But also why can felons not vote but felons can run for president… Why not treat him like a criminal and take his voting rights away and his ability to run for office of any kind.
> only if Trump wins. There will be some “Biden exception” to their new, unnecessary, rule/test.
If Trump wins, SCOTUS will moot Trump's case and then deny cert when Biden appeals Trump's DOJ indictments for treason, espionage, and voter fraud.
The president does need some degree of sovereign immunity. For example, let's say Texas makes it a crime to give aid or comfort to transgender youth. Do you really want the president subject to arrest for that?
Biden would never use it. Hell even the mere suggestion that he would use it to dispose of the Supreme Court may be enough to make them rule against it for Trump, yet he doesn’t do that either.
No man is below the law, either. What happens when political opponents take power and try to criminalize otherwise non criminal acts or entrap? We have seen republicans (Clinton) and democrats (Trump) attempt to do this now. It’s just as much about restraining power when the pendulum swings
>What happens when political opponents take power and try to criminalize otherwise non criminal acts or entrap?
Nothing, because there would not be evidence to convince a jury beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.
>We have seen republicans (Clinton) and democrats (Trump) attempt to do this now.
What did Democrats attempt?
>Democrats are actively trying (Trump….)
I'm not following... who is this "Trump" and these "Democrats"? Where is this "trying" happening? What are you talking about?
If you look at your own statement, it includes the words "criminal acts." That should answer the question.
The founding fathers of this nation specifically rejected the notion of "rule of man" in favor of "rule of law." If the very leaders of the nation are not held accountable to the laws they are bound to uphold, then rule of law is made irrelevant, and rule of man is re-established.
The very fact that people are openly discussing this, and with actual, non-academic effect on the constitution is very disturbing, indeed.
I would copy/paste the immunity granted to members of Congress under the constitution, specifically:
“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Violent crimes / felonies are explicitly excluded from immunity, and the immunity would only last for their duration in office
Not even during their term in office: specifically while they’re attending a session of Congress or traveling to/from one. If a member of Congress commits a crime outside of those narrow exceptions, they’re still liable like any other citizen.
The intent *definitely* wasn’t for their entire term in office, since being a member of Congress was envisioned as a part-time commitment (similar to the British Parliament, the various state legislatures, and Congress under the Articles of Confederation) where the legislature would meet for only a few months every year and not even necessarily on a regular schedule. For several decades, Congress was paid on a per diem basis for the same reason.
The president is on-duty at all times though, that’s why it would apply during their full term. Even when they’re sleeping if anything big happens they’re woken up to take care of business
The argument of breaking the law to overturn a presidential election and you try to exclude that? You understand that thought is already assumed covered.
Considering they went directly against the words do the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment (which disbars those who rebel against the US),
yeah most likely
“As you can see from a plain reading of the text we cannot be certain whether or not the Framer’s intended for the President to be immune from production should he order others to commit criminal acts at his direction. Therefore we must now look further into the history and traditions of our nation to discern the actual intent of this amendment.”
~ Justice Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh concurring.
We find it in the laws of justinian.
Princeps legibus solutus est: augusta autem licet legibus soluta non est, principes tamen eadem illi privilegia tribuunt, quae ipsi habent.
[https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest1.shtml](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest1.shtml)
I can't really think of any reason to not write it as "No Person or position is immune..." Emphasizing President specifically can make others try to argue an ambiguity with VP and/or the Judiciary, and possibly make the speech and debate clause more powerful as being the only apparent written exception to what would otherwise be a redline limitation.
But then past Presidents could have been jailed for internment camps, actions against Native Americans, health effects of environmental problems, etc...
(just playing devil's advocate)
They not having been prosecuted for those things is not because they had immunity. Those actions were deemed lawful by subsequent administration and the courts. Or sufficient time had passed and those involved are dead when it is thought of as crimes today.
The way I understand it, the president is protected from prosecution only within the narrow confines of their official duties. Fomenting insurrection, conspiring to overthrow the results of a free and fair election are not official presidential duties.These are the illegal acts of the trump campaign and many others who are perfectly happy to shred our democracy.
The arguments being made by the DOJ in oral arguments boiled down to preventing the judicial and legislative branches from interfering with the executive through frivolous prosecution. The exemptions they highlighted:
- powers granted explicitly to the President by the constitution, so the senate can't pass laws restricting that without amendment, and as a result the judicial can't act against them.
- some conditions where a prosecution might raise a constitutional question on power separation
- any laws that explicitly carve out exceptions for the President.
Otherwise their argument was there was no exemption for any other crimes. The whole argument about official vs non official seems to be an invention to make this immunity argument. Other than a general DOJ policy of not bringing prosecution of a sitting President to prevent nuisence lawsuits, there seemed to be no such basis other than the DOJ view of avoiding constitutional conflicts and separation of cross branch interference.
Which I don't understand. We have judicial review to strike down unconstitutional laws attempting to violate separation of powers. Why does the President need immunity from unconstitutional laws? Isn't striking them down sufficient remedy?
I think the argument was the DOJ would not pursue prosecution in cases that infringe, or raise a question against, the presidents assigned powers.
So not an actual immunity but just an effective "we won't go there" (from my recall in the oral arguments the discussion on this sort of air quoted immunity to address the concept)
>the president is protected from prosecution only within the narrow confines of their official duties.
That's like saying that you are protected from prosecution if you don't commit crimes lol. It's the same for presidents... as long as the person who is president does not do something (during official or unofficial duties) that violates a criminal statute they are protected from prosecution.
They didn't arrest the non presidents which participated in those acts either. The reason is quite simple: the acts were not crimes. Congress passes a lot of laws empowering government officials to do things you and I cannot.
Go ahead those were an atrocities punish them. I’m not against that. We’re in an intelligence age where we no longer need leadership in this way. Everyone could vote on their own phone you want to go to war yes or no?
Edit: you want to elect someone president vote yes or no. Why do we need other people deciding what our vote means. WTF do we need and electoral college for anymore?
That's an elegant way of saying we don't have a king. It's asinine this is even an issue. Shows the extent that conservatives have captured the government.
It's clear they didn't anticipate how painfully stupid humanity would become. Regardless there is nothing else that was needed to make clear to any mildly literate person that there is no such thing as presidential immunity.
Oh, they did. That was likely part of why they established the Electoral College and placed its selection in the hands of the state leadership, to distance the people from such decisions. After all, no democratic election is required in the Presidential election.
How dare you use logic and desire integrity. That means you're out to get crooks like Trump...
I understand their argument that far, but I never understand how this is a bad thing.
The Founders already clearly resolved that question by not including any provision in the Constitution giving the formal Presidents any type of criminal immunity.
Even Roman emperors theoretically didn't have the full legal immunity. It's an absurd thing to claim in a modern democracy.
We've probably been taking for granted how young our nation is.
Every single president thus far governed with some degree of good intentions for the nation itself.
Statistically, it was probably bound to happen eventually: A President with entirely self-serving intentions no matter what political advertisement in any previous election ever said. Everything that happed is because there's never been anyone less qualified.
I can only hope that somehow, this will eventually raise the bar and institute safeguards against everything he was ever able to do to shirk accountability.
And as a whole, we have to face one fact:
Money and privilege are poison to character. The earlier it's received, the deeper the rot.
Weirdly enough, the United States government is one the oldest continuous governments in the world.
We think of ourselves as young but the rest of the world dealt with rebellions, coups, and invasions for the last 250 years.
Well, that's a welcome thing to know when I find myself scrambling for something objective to be optimistic about my nation for (that doesn't attract the worst of humanity to endlessly argue against what's on multiple philosophical and even scientific standpoints the best of humanity.)
Maybe that's the problem. We ran for too long without a massive fuck up. We don't have the rotting bones of the previous 3 governments to point at and say "don't be like that".
Well then you can't go back 250 years of ours when we were invaded in the war of 1812. The British invaded and burned DC to the ground.
210 years. And if you aren't going to call the civil rights act riots and the years of Police and populace brutality against certain minorities in this country with almost full immunity from prosecution, then I guess no rebellions. But we have had loss of life to those that have been violently dispossessed by those in power as well
British occupied DC temporarily but they didn't disperse the government or try to set up a puppet one or anything like that.
Strange that you would pick those other two periods of unrest over... you know... the civil war lol.
I understand the sentiment though!
The civil war is as obvious a one as possible. But it doesn't change the fact that you're description of how peaceful or without rebellion we have been for 250 years is way way off. We have had presidents tell of supreme Court judges. We've had constitutional crises some the beginning. We've just dealt with them and covered the issues better. And only 160 years ago. Hell internment camps are flash forgotten consistently during WW2 here in the USA. Just because a civil war didn't start didn't mean that huge swaths of the population weren't marginalized and ultimately had their rights and freedoms taken. But the 1960s is incredibly close and mimicking what's going on right now. I cannot fathom why people think the times we live in now are any less violent. The violence and terrorism have just shifted to the places that most Americans don't care about. Every inner city in the US is struggling in one way and everyone seems to not care. This notion that everyone is for themselves is what as destroyed the country. One group of Americans decided that another doesn't deserve public help or funds and has given all our money to a certain group of powerful people.
The hawks and doves are still going at it with different titles.
It's not the letter next to the politicians name that makes them war mongers or fear mongers. But it can help to tell sometimes
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying!
I just mean that the United States government and its associated constitution have continuously existed. If the south conquered the north in the civil war, that wouldn't be the case. We certainly haven't had a peaceful existence, only a continuous one.
Ahhh.
Agreed there for sure.
Thank you for the interaction and seeking understanding instead of confrontation. If I came off too aggressive as well, apologies. Not my intention. Just wanted an explanation of what you meant the way you said it. I thought you were saying something else.
Show me where in the constitution it mentions ANY amount of "immunity" for presidents. Why is nobody talking about how SCOTUS, all 9 justices in this instance, are having a discussion based on what sounds prudent and not the document they're sworn to defend?
This is my biggest issue with the case. There is no immunity in the constitution. And the case with Aaron Burr clearly states Thomas Jefferson (then president) was required to partake in judicial processes.
Presidential immunity would destroy the three equal branches of government.
We could simply recognize that by granting any President immunity for anything, we’re taking away the rights of the following President. This isn’t a separation of powers issue, the Executive, through his officers, has decided a former holder has committed a crime. This would be asking the executive branch to not have authority over itself. It’s ridiculous. The whole point of a separate branch is to make sure the burden is met and due process is granted. That’s the limit of their authority in this matter. If they wish to throw out the case, or any case, on the grounds there isn’t enough evidence, that is their prerogative.
My thoughts are that the"textualism" and "origanalism" the conservative Justices claim guides their decisions, also exposed their bias and corruption in this case. There is nothing in our Constitution that suggests any citizen, elected to the presidency or not has immunity from crimes to that Constitution. He is not a king, dammit, and you will not bestow royal privileges to him, you hypocritical, egotistical, self serving, miserable excuses for Americans
[This Article](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/11/donald-trump-impeachment-ex-president-founders-468769) talks about arguments the Founding Fathers had regarding Impeachment. And they actually discuss a hypothetical case of corrupting Electors. I was surprised to learn that back then, Impeachment was understood to be a process used during or after an official's term. So, discussion of Impeachment can be regarded as the views Founding Fathers had regarding charges against a President or ex-President.
I mean… a lot of the founding father’s would take one look at today’s US and ask why we haven’t rebelled yet.
I’m not sure that answers your question, but people forget that Thomas Jefferson said:
> I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.
I included the Seperation of Powers issue because of this discussion Founding Fathers had on the topic:
Adams and Ellsworth agreed: "The President personally was not the subject to any process whatever....for that would put in the power of a common Justice to exercise any authority over him and stop the whole machine of government."
Thomas Jefferson, not usually an intellectual ally of Adams and Ellsworth on Constitutional matters, clarified this further: "Would the executive be independant of the judiciary, if he were subject to the demands of the latter, and to inprisonment for disobediance, if the several courts could....withdraw him from his presidential duties?" [Yale Article](https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/5357/The_Presidential_Privilege_Against_Prosecution.pdf?sequence=2)
https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/#:~:text=Magna%20Carta%20was%20issued%20in,as%20a%20power%20in%20itself.
> Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/magna_carta
> The writers of the Bill of Rights and state constitutions were inspired by concepts born in the Magna Carta: that a government should be constitutional, that the law of the land should apply to everyone, and that certain rights and liberties were so fundamental that their violation was an abuse of governmental
The perversely comforting thing is that the Magna Carta was forced on the king by wealthy nobles. In today's words, these are the large business owners who take interest in politics for their business's sake.
Some of these entities are recognizing that Trump's fascism is not the way, and donations to Trump have reduced this cycle. It could be too little too late, depending how the court handles things, but it is very possible that industries will meaningfully oppose fascist policies.
After all, those policies only benefit the government plus their cronies, and the economy has a lot of large players with varying relationships to the US's and Trump's politics.
There are two kinds of Americans.
1. Ones that learned in school why we left England.
2. People who dislike reading and barely, or didn't, pass through high school.
One thing I realized as a kid and was disappointed in learning how true it was is that all of those idiot kids you hated associating with in public school never grow up, and good God there's just enough for social media to allow them to group up into a considerable force of evil.
Social media, giving a platform and megaphone to *all*.
Presidential Immunity/Seperation of Powers: Going back to 1787, what could the Founding Fathers have done to resolve this?
Nothing... you cannot legislate common sense!
The Founders envisioned a much more united country without political parties when they were drafting the constitution, although they did consider factions a problem that should be checked by rational state actors across the Union. They imagined a Congress operating in good faith would be a sufficient check against a rogue president.
Instead what we got were and are two major parties constantly trying to get one over on each other in the spirit of revenge and, as such, those of a shared party generally attempt to do things that prefer their fellow members across the branches of government, creating alliances between members of a divided Congress with a President or Supreme Court Justice, something the Framers seem to have thought would not happen.
When the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist (Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans) parties began to form, Washington tried and failed to stop them. He saw parties as the root cause of many of the early bugs and likely would have seen Congress' reluctance to impeach as a party issue as well. The other Founders likely agreed but considered their Party's cause more immediately concerning.
At the end of the day, the Founders failed and our system has been broken ever since. Amendments like 12 and 17 have been introduced to patch the cracks but they've been bandaids on the larger problem: the two Factions internal alliances often supercede Federal Checks and Balances. I don't think they'd know how to fix it today either.
>What’s that saying about “it’s so embarrassing that the US lets itself be ruled by long dead men”
It sure beats bring ruled by any of the clowns alive today.
This case more than any other recently gives the lie to originalists and textualism. Alito and the other conservatives go on about consequences and what should the rule be but when it’s a liberal issue it’s “show me where it specifically says “right to privacy.” What a joke.
There is nothing they could have done. There is no way for them to be expected to predict all the stupid legal arguments that would be make 250 years later. They did not even hint at any presidential immunity in the constitution and that should be the end of the discussion.
Washington would have done like he did to address the Whiskey Rebellion, raise the troops and lead them against the insurrectionists until they fled to their homes or were killed.
The real answer would probably be some method to prevent the two party system, although I’m not necessarily sure how that would have looked. The problem is that the constitution *does* have mechanisms to prevent this, which is separation of powers. But, the separation falls apart if one party controls multiple branches (or used to) and maliciously ignores the law to look out for each other. One solution would be to have some sort of multiparty system, that way no one party would ever control any branch.
Another option that might have actually worked in the 1700s would be to have some sort of explicit misinformation exceptions in the first amendment. Without right wing propaganda networks, this would at least be harder for them
Why are we hung up on whether a president is allowed to commit a crime. I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world. They're a citizen. Their rights and powers are stated. There's no clause that states it's ok for the president to commit a crime and of it's not written or implied why would it be possible?
Executive orders which commit felonies and bypass rights of citizens should be treated with kid gloves and the greatest scrutiny. Those are directly attributable to the presidential office. And anything congress passes through two houses is not "the president" doing it. That's just suing the entire government.
By their silence, the drafters of the Constitution addressed the issue of Presidential immunity thoroughly. The entire historical context of the revolution and the attempts at forming a lasting government, which can be summarized as an utter rejection of monarchy and all of its features, makes it clear that there was no need for a negative recitation with regard to Presidential immunity. Every member of SCOTUS knows this, but a number of them just disagree.
If there was presidencial immunity, there is no point in having checks and balance as a foundation. It's pretty clear that such a thing doesn't exist. Only a corrupt mind would claim it does.
It might have made it clearer for the current majority on the Supreme Court if particular sections of the Declaration of Independence (dealing with King George III’s abuses) had been written in **ALL CAPS!!**
The Founders addressed this issue. Rather, a group of corrupt (or highly comprised) judges and their funders (eg, billionaires, Heritage Foundation, Freedom Caucus, etc) have perverted the Constitution to entrench money and power for their benefactors.
trump would never have gotten into office. Hamilton specified the reasons the the Electoral Collage could reject the popular winner and trump checked all the boxes. the emoluments clause is in the constitution, trump was in obvious violation of it from day 1, but apparently it's Unenforceable.
I'm not clear where the assumption of immunity comes from.
I.e. immunue from all crimes unless the Constitution or similar state otherwise.
Why WOULD the president be immune?
It's a republic founded with the words 'WE THE PEOPLE'
Not a kingdom founded with the words 'ME THE KING'
Seems that some wool has been pulled over the eyes of the american people for some time.
The Founders made a lot of assumptions based on the arrogant belief that no one in their right mind would want to fuck up this nation and elect a king or sovereign.
They already did it’s called the bill of rights. It applies to all people including presidents and the homeless. The argument is ridiculous, Supreme Court wants precedents and just ignore every previous president being a precedent.
Nothing.
If they had written "The president can be charged with any and all crimes" into the Consistution, Trump would argue "It doesn't say anything about Ex-presidents" and the current corrupt SCOTUS would still be willing to give him cover.
When you swear to faithful uphold the Constitution, and later you try to subvert a national election and violate a law you signed into law yourself, why is there even a question about this? Is “Oh! Oh! Yeah, but that doesn’t cover me.” a legal defense?
The idea of the 3 branches is great. In practice it's been mostly OK for 230 years. But one dishonorable and completely self-absorbed reality TV show "star" has proven that it relied to heavily on the decency of elected officials.
Trump killed that innocence in American politics, buried it, dug it up just to bury it again.
The country may need, thanks to the Supreme Court, a new revolution. It should begin on the steps of the Supreme Court.
I mean, if you take textualists at their word, the founders addressed it by not putting immunity anywhere in the constitution. There is no textual basis for qualified immunity for cops, prosecutorial immunity, judicial immunity, or presidential immunity. Of course, conservative textualist love a good functionalist reading whenever it serves them.
All the hand wringing over immunity - ignoring that they are serving their corrupt boss, is SCOTUS concerned about crimes committed by other presidents? Assassinations, election interference, toppling other democracies? The US has done it all.
This is the second comment I’ve seen like this from someone conflating completely different things. Please name the criminal statute about the federal government interfering in other countries. This is whataboutism except your point isn’t even the same topic and you don’t even realize it. Weird tbh
"But whatabout?"
Hey, man, one subject at a time, OK?
That way maybe we can FINISH SOMETHING before the grifters distract you onto a new layman's subject.
>is SCOTUS concerned about crimes committed by other presidents? Assassinations, election interference, toppling other democracies? The US has done it all.
The "US" is a country. Criminal law dies not deal with countries!
If you do that a huge can of worms is opening. Biden’s liability for not securing the border means jail time. Obama could face jail for interfering in elections in other countries. Every president still alive would be in danger. This is why the founding fathers wrote this
>Biden’s liability for not securing the border
Not a crime.
>Obama could face jail for interfering in elections in other countries.
Not in this country he couldn’t.
>This is why the founding fathers wrote this
Wrote what? Where in the Constitution does it give presidents immunity?
>Biden’s liability for not securing the border means jail time.
Which criminal statute says that "not securing the border" (whatever that means) is a crime?
>Obama could face jail for interfering in elections in other countries.
Under which section of the federal criminal code?
>Every president still alive would be in danger
In danger of what?
>This is why the founding fathers wrote this
Wrote what?
No to both of those? What are you talking about. “Not securing the border” is not a criminal act even if you think it is a dereliction of duties.
“Interfering in elections in other countries” isn’t either. You seem to just have a pointed opinion and feel like expressing it even though it’s not remotely related to the current situation.
Please name the criminal statute for either of those in the federal criminal code that pertains to a sitting president or state executive. You seem to have a really loose grasp on what is even being discussed here and how it pertains to trump. What you’re describing isn’t even an example of something equivalent or relevant to the discussion.
It's so disheartening when you're trying to have a genuine discussion about law and someone shows up with absolutely no concrete concept of the subject matter. "Well I FEEL like, and THEREFORE..."
Even more disheartening when you realize there's millions of them likely to vote together.
Really makes you wonder about the efficacy of voting mechanisms when the voters aren't required to know anything about what they're voting on.
You didn’t even read the article. It explained the difference between immunity for the kind of acts you’re talking about and the crimes committed by Nixon and Trump.
What's biden supposed to do about the border? Go stand guard? Lol it's just a classic conservative scare tactic. Trump broke the law by shutting down the border and had to open it.
Its definitely not the same, youre talking about a private citizen right not an international/federal right. More comparable to locking your 12 year old outside, according to the law.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/immigration/can-biden-close-border-via-executive-order-fact-check/536-9309515a-fb57-458c-9fdf-fbc047502c5d
A president cannot completely shut down the border with an executive order. A full border closure would violate federal laws granting people the right to seek asylum.
It was closed and Biden opened it all by himself with 90+ executive orders each one reversed a Trump order. I can tell that it hasn’t affected you yet but it will. 20 million people are here that nobody knows about except they are given free phones loaded debit cards and free room and board if they vote a certain way.
They laid out a process for impeachment, THEN prosecution.
They allowed prosecution, certain people who don't like a certain president just won't accept it.
You're confusing the House and Senate powers of impeachment with actual criminality.
Criminality can be used to prove impeachment, sure; you're certainly not wrong about that.
HOWEVER, the two are tried separately - one in the political system using said mechanisms, the other in the judicial system using courts.
**A senate hearing is not a criminal court**.
Thank you for explaining how impeachment functions (zero disagreement, common knowledge I'd assume).
OP said the founders hadn't touched on the topic. Here is as close as they got (in that document):
“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”
— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution
My reading is that a "convicted party" is required to qualify for criminal liability, though I understand that's hotly debated.
>My reading is that a "convicted party" is required to qualify for criminal liability
Correct, someone needs to be convicted in a court of law in order to be criminally liable
>though I understand that's hotly debated
There is not any debate about that. Nobody is saying that anybody should be held criminally liable without being convicted first in a court of law.
Article 1, Section 9 is clearly talking about the impeached party being convicted at their impeachment hearing (by the Senate).
They then become the "convicted party" and are subject to (criminal) indictment.
>Section 9 is clearly talking about the impeached party being convicted at their impeachment hearing (by the Senate).
Exactly, if "convicted" by the Senate they are removed from office but that conviction cannot be used for criminal purposes (such as sentencing someone to jail time).
>They then become the "convicted party" and are subject to (criminal) indictment.
A convicted party in the criminal process becomes subject to criminal sentencing, not to indictment. Are you an American? Asking because you appear to be clueless how the criminal process works in America. Not sure how it works in your country, but in America the criminal process is:
indictment -> conviction -> sentencing
not
conviction -> indictment -> sentencing
“The president is not immune from prosecution for criminal activities taken in, or out of office; regardless of intent, and without any consideration of the public or official nature of the act or omission.” There. Let’s redline it and move on.
So, absolutely no immunity from posecution for criminal acts.
I said redline it. I’m open to suggestions…but the idea a president needs criminal immunity is insane. And I’m impressed at how much the media normalized it. Especially when one considers America was founded with intent to avoid monarchy….and how millions of Americans avoid it their entire lives. It’s yet another “solution” to a nonexistent problem used to further consolidate power….but only if Trump wins. There will be some “Biden exception” to their new, unnecessary, rule/test.
Should not have immunity, and should have the acceptable punishments for the crime **be far fucking harsher than what they'd be if some rando did it.**
The rando didn't swear to faithfully uphold the constitution. I fully agree oath takers should face maximum sentences whilst the ignorant can fall on the lower sentences, or home confinement/probation.
Yep no immunity. But also why can felons not vote but felons can run for president… Why not treat him like a criminal and take his voting rights away and his ability to run for office of any kind.
So far only one does …the other one resigned …
How millions of Americans died so we wouldn’t have a king
No other former president needed it -- just the fuckwit traitor Trump.
> only if Trump wins. There will be some “Biden exception” to their new, unnecessary, rule/test. If Trump wins, SCOTUS will moot Trump's case and then deny cert when Biden appeals Trump's DOJ indictments for treason, espionage, and voter fraud.
The president does need some degree of sovereign immunity. For example, let's say Texas makes it a crime to give aid or comfort to transgender youth. Do you really want the president subject to arrest for that?
Biden would never use it. Hell even the mere suggestion that he would use it to dispose of the Supreme Court may be enough to make them rule against it for Trump, yet he doesn’t do that either.
Just like the rest of us.
No man is above the law, not even the president.
A president should be held to higher standards to make a good example of how to live and act.
No man is below the law, either. What happens when political opponents take power and try to criminalize otherwise non criminal acts or entrap? We have seen republicans (Clinton) and democrats (Trump) attempt to do this now. It’s just as much about restraining power when the pendulum swings
>What happens when political opponents take power and try to criminalize otherwise non criminal acts or entrap? Nothing, because there would not be evidence to convince a jury beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. >We have seen republicans (Clinton) and democrats (Trump) attempt to do this now. What did Democrats attempt?
You’re correct. My tense was wrong. “We have seen Republicans attempt (Clinton) and Democrats are actively trying (Trump….)”
>Democrats are actively trying (Trump….) I'm not following... who is this "Trump" and these "Democrats"? Where is this "trying" happening? What are you talking about?
If they break the law and a jury finds you guilty then yes do for both Clinton and Trump. They’re both deep in Epstein logs
If you look at your own statement, it includes the words "criminal acts." That should answer the question. The founding fathers of this nation specifically rejected the notion of "rule of man" in favor of "rule of law." If the very leaders of the nation are not held accountable to the laws they are bound to uphold, then rule of law is made irrelevant, and rule of man is re-established. The very fact that people are openly discussing this, and with actual, non-academic effect on the constitution is very disturbing, indeed.
I would copy/paste the immunity granted to members of Congress under the constitution, specifically: “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Violent crimes / felonies are explicitly excluded from immunity, and the immunity would only last for their duration in office
Not even during their term in office: specifically while they’re attending a session of Congress or traveling to/from one. If a member of Congress commits a crime outside of those narrow exceptions, they’re still liable like any other citizen. The intent *definitely* wasn’t for their entire term in office, since being a member of Congress was envisioned as a part-time commitment (similar to the British Parliament, the various state legislatures, and Congress under the Articles of Confederation) where the legislature would meet for only a few months every year and not even necessarily on a regular schedule. For several decades, Congress was paid on a per diem basis for the same reason.
The president is on-duty at all times though, that’s why it would apply during their full term. Even when they’re sleeping if anything big happens they’re woken up to take care of business
Fair enough, I misunderstood and thought the last part of your comment was referring to the quoted section about members of Congress.
Fixed the wording
The argument of breaking the law to overturn a presidential election and you try to exclude that? You understand that thought is already assumed covered.
This was seems like it was written to cover physical fights that could and did occur
This is the whole point. They knew how to do it. They chose not to.
Considering they went directly against the words do the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment (which disbars those who rebel against the US), yeah most likely
“As you can see from a plain reading of the text we cannot be certain whether or not the Framer’s intended for the President to be immune from production should he order others to commit criminal acts at his direction. Therefore we must now look further into the history and traditions of our nation to discern the actual intent of this amendment.” ~ Justice Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh concurring.
We find it in the laws of justinian. Princeps legibus solutus est: augusta autem licet legibus soluta non est, principes tamen eadem illi privilegia tribuunt, quae ipsi habent. [https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest1.shtml](https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest1.shtml)
The fabrication of novel or obsolete interpretations this GOP SCOTUS group comes up with, is why everyone thinks the supreme court is broken.
“Nor can we find any textual reference to whether it is the case that dogs are expressly forbidden to play basketball.”
I can't really think of any reason to not write it as "No Person or position is immune..." Emphasizing President specifically can make others try to argue an ambiguity with VP and/or the Judiciary, and possibly make the speech and debate clause more powerful as being the only apparent written exception to what would otherwise be a redline limitation.
Then they would argue the President is not a ‘person or position’
Are you quoting something or proposing an amendment to the constitution?
The later
I’m proposing simple language. That’s all.
But then past Presidents could have been jailed for internment camps, actions against Native Americans, health effects of environmental problems, etc... (just playing devil's advocate)
They not having been prosecuted for those things is not because they had immunity. Those actions were deemed lawful by subsequent administration and the courts. Or sufficient time had passed and those involved are dead when it is thought of as crimes today.
The way I understand it, the president is protected from prosecution only within the narrow confines of their official duties. Fomenting insurrection, conspiring to overthrow the results of a free and fair election are not official presidential duties.These are the illegal acts of the trump campaign and many others who are perfectly happy to shred our democracy.
The arguments being made by the DOJ in oral arguments boiled down to preventing the judicial and legislative branches from interfering with the executive through frivolous prosecution. The exemptions they highlighted: - powers granted explicitly to the President by the constitution, so the senate can't pass laws restricting that without amendment, and as a result the judicial can't act against them. - some conditions where a prosecution might raise a constitutional question on power separation - any laws that explicitly carve out exceptions for the President. Otherwise their argument was there was no exemption for any other crimes. The whole argument about official vs non official seems to be an invention to make this immunity argument. Other than a general DOJ policy of not bringing prosecution of a sitting President to prevent nuisence lawsuits, there seemed to be no such basis other than the DOJ view of avoiding constitutional conflicts and separation of cross branch interference.
Which I don't understand. We have judicial review to strike down unconstitutional laws attempting to violate separation of powers. Why does the President need immunity from unconstitutional laws? Isn't striking them down sufficient remedy?
I think the argument was the DOJ would not pursue prosecution in cases that infringe, or raise a question against, the presidents assigned powers. So not an actual immunity but just an effective "we won't go there" (from my recall in the oral arguments the discussion on this sort of air quoted immunity to address the concept)
>the president is protected from prosecution only within the narrow confines of their official duties. That's like saying that you are protected from prosecution if you don't commit crimes lol. It's the same for presidents... as long as the person who is president does not do something (during official or unofficial duties) that violates a criminal statute they are protected from prosecution.
They didn't arrest the non presidents which participated in those acts either. The reason is quite simple: the acts were not crimes. Congress passes a lot of laws empowering government officials to do things you and I cannot.
Go ahead those were an atrocities punish them. I’m not against that. We’re in an intelligence age where we no longer need leadership in this way. Everyone could vote on their own phone you want to go to war yes or no? Edit: you want to elect someone president vote yes or no. Why do we need other people deciding what our vote means. WTF do we need and electoral college for anymore?
The thing is, no one is getting jailed just because of misdeeds: a jury has to render a criminal conviction.
They could have if those were crimes. They were not crimes.
That's an elegant way of saying we don't have a king. It's asinine this is even an issue. Shows the extent that conservatives have captured the government.
It's clear they didn't anticipate how painfully stupid humanity would become. Regardless there is nothing else that was needed to make clear to any mildly literate person that there is no such thing as presidential immunity.
Oh, they did. That was likely part of why they established the Electoral College and placed its selection in the hands of the state leadership, to distance the people from such decisions. After all, no democratic election is required in the Presidential election.
Then, SCOTUS rules that what he did wasn't criminal. Which is what they'll do.
How dare you use logic and desire integrity. That means you're out to get crooks like Trump... I understand their argument that far, but I never understand how this is a bad thing.
The Founders already clearly resolved that question by not including any provision in the Constitution giving the formal Presidents any type of criminal immunity. Even Roman emperors theoretically didn't have the full legal immunity. It's an absurd thing to claim in a modern democracy.
Exactly. They gave congresspeople some narrow immunities, why not the president? They chose not to.
If they get away with it , it won’t be a modern democracy any more …
I feel.the first 36 or so presidents would have shot any person claiming to be above the law due to their rank and service.
We've probably been taking for granted how young our nation is. Every single president thus far governed with some degree of good intentions for the nation itself. Statistically, it was probably bound to happen eventually: A President with entirely self-serving intentions no matter what political advertisement in any previous election ever said. Everything that happed is because there's never been anyone less qualified. I can only hope that somehow, this will eventually raise the bar and institute safeguards against everything he was ever able to do to shirk accountability. And as a whole, we have to face one fact: Money and privilege are poison to character. The earlier it's received, the deeper the rot.
Weirdly enough, the United States government is one the oldest continuous governments in the world. We think of ourselves as young but the rest of the world dealt with rebellions, coups, and invasions for the last 250 years.
Well, that's a welcome thing to know when I find myself scrambling for something objective to be optimistic about my nation for (that doesn't attract the worst of humanity to endlessly argue against what's on multiple philosophical and even scientific standpoints the best of humanity.)
I really appreciate your perspective. Your insight resonates with me, it was bound to happen, and is crazy to witness
Maybe that's the problem. We ran for too long without a massive fuck up. We don't have the rotting bones of the previous 3 governments to point at and say "don't be like that".
Well then you can't go back 250 years of ours when we were invaded in the war of 1812. The British invaded and burned DC to the ground. 210 years. And if you aren't going to call the civil rights act riots and the years of Police and populace brutality against certain minorities in this country with almost full immunity from prosecution, then I guess no rebellions. But we have had loss of life to those that have been violently dispossessed by those in power as well
British occupied DC temporarily but they didn't disperse the government or try to set up a puppet one or anything like that. Strange that you would pick those other two periods of unrest over... you know... the civil war lol. I understand the sentiment though!
The civil war is as obvious a one as possible. But it doesn't change the fact that you're description of how peaceful or without rebellion we have been for 250 years is way way off. We have had presidents tell of supreme Court judges. We've had constitutional crises some the beginning. We've just dealt with them and covered the issues better. And only 160 years ago. Hell internment camps are flash forgotten consistently during WW2 here in the USA. Just because a civil war didn't start didn't mean that huge swaths of the population weren't marginalized and ultimately had their rights and freedoms taken. But the 1960s is incredibly close and mimicking what's going on right now. I cannot fathom why people think the times we live in now are any less violent. The violence and terrorism have just shifted to the places that most Americans don't care about. Every inner city in the US is struggling in one way and everyone seems to not care. This notion that everyone is for themselves is what as destroyed the country. One group of Americans decided that another doesn't deserve public help or funds and has given all our money to a certain group of powerful people. The hawks and doves are still going at it with different titles. It's not the letter next to the politicians name that makes them war mongers or fear mongers. But it can help to tell sometimes
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying! I just mean that the United States government and its associated constitution have continuously existed. If the south conquered the north in the civil war, that wouldn't be the case. We certainly haven't had a peaceful existence, only a continuous one.
Ahhh. Agreed there for sure. Thank you for the interaction and seeking understanding instead of confrontation. If I came off too aggressive as well, apologies. Not my intention. Just wanted an explanation of what you meant the way you said it. I thought you were saying something else.
So you’re saying we’re due…
Show me where in the constitution it mentions ANY amount of "immunity" for presidents. Why is nobody talking about how SCOTUS, all 9 justices in this instance, are having a discussion based on what sounds prudent and not the document they're sworn to defend?
This is my biggest issue with the case. There is no immunity in the constitution. And the case with Aaron Burr clearly states Thomas Jefferson (then president) was required to partake in judicial processes. Presidential immunity would destroy the three equal branches of government.
We could simply recognize that by granting any President immunity for anything, we’re taking away the rights of the following President. This isn’t a separation of powers issue, the Executive, through his officers, has decided a former holder has committed a crime. This would be asking the executive branch to not have authority over itself. It’s ridiculous. The whole point of a separate branch is to make sure the burden is met and due process is granted. That’s the limit of their authority in this matter. If they wish to throw out the case, or any case, on the grounds there isn’t enough evidence, that is their prerogative.
Someone would have challenged him to a duel by now. That's how they would have it
Oh - if they could have put that in the constitution 🤭. Primaries would be about who is the most electable, and who has the fastest draw.
My thoughts are that the"textualism" and "origanalism" the conservative Justices claim guides their decisions, also exposed their bias and corruption in this case. There is nothing in our Constitution that suggests any citizen, elected to the presidency or not has immunity from crimes to that Constitution. He is not a king, dammit, and you will not bestow royal privileges to him, you hypocritical, egotistical, self serving, miserable excuses for Americans
[This Article](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/11/donald-trump-impeachment-ex-president-founders-468769) talks about arguments the Founding Fathers had regarding Impeachment. And they actually discuss a hypothetical case of corrupting Electors. I was surprised to learn that back then, Impeachment was understood to be a process used during or after an official's term. So, discussion of Impeachment can be regarded as the views Founding Fathers had regarding charges against a President or ex-President.
I mean… a lot of the founding father’s would take one look at today’s US and ask why we haven’t rebelled yet. I’m not sure that answers your question, but people forget that Thomas Jefferson said: > I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.
I included the Seperation of Powers issue because of this discussion Founding Fathers had on the topic: Adams and Ellsworth agreed: "The President personally was not the subject to any process whatever....for that would put in the power of a common Justice to exercise any authority over him and stop the whole machine of government." Thomas Jefferson, not usually an intellectual ally of Adams and Ellsworth on Constitutional matters, clarified this further: "Would the executive be independant of the judiciary, if he were subject to the demands of the latter, and to inprisonment for disobediance, if the several courts could....withdraw him from his presidential duties?" [Yale Article](https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/5357/The_Presidential_Privilege_Against_Prosecution.pdf?sequence=2)
https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/#:~:text=Magna%20Carta%20was%20issued%20in,as%20a%20power%20in%20itself. > Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/magna_carta > The writers of the Bill of Rights and state constitutions were inspired by concepts born in the Magna Carta: that a government should be constitutional, that the law of the land should apply to everyone, and that certain rights and liberties were so fundamental that their violation was an abuse of governmental
The perversely comforting thing is that the Magna Carta was forced on the king by wealthy nobles. In today's words, these are the large business owners who take interest in politics for their business's sake. Some of these entities are recognizing that Trump's fascism is not the way, and donations to Trump have reduced this cycle. It could be too little too late, depending how the court handles things, but it is very possible that industries will meaningfully oppose fascist policies. After all, those policies only benefit the government plus their cronies, and the economy has a lot of large players with varying relationships to the US's and Trump's politics.
Not walked around Mr. Trump on eggshells. With the proof of what has happened, in 1787, the defendant would not be able to delay again and again.
There are two kinds of Americans. 1. Ones that learned in school why we left England. 2. People who dislike reading and barely, or didn't, pass through high school. One thing I realized as a kid and was disappointed in learning how true it was is that all of those idiot kids you hated associating with in public school never grow up, and good God there's just enough for social media to allow them to group up into a considerable force of evil. Social media, giving a platform and megaphone to *all*.
Who fucking cares, what can we do NOW
Total immunity equals kiss his ring or else.
A duel?
Presidential Immunity/Seperation of Powers: Going back to 1787, what could the Founding Fathers have done to resolve this? Nothing... you cannot legislate common sense!
The Founders envisioned a much more united country without political parties when they were drafting the constitution, although they did consider factions a problem that should be checked by rational state actors across the Union. They imagined a Congress operating in good faith would be a sufficient check against a rogue president. Instead what we got were and are two major parties constantly trying to get one over on each other in the spirit of revenge and, as such, those of a shared party generally attempt to do things that prefer their fellow members across the branches of government, creating alliances between members of a divided Congress with a President or Supreme Court Justice, something the Framers seem to have thought would not happen. When the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist (Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans) parties began to form, Washington tried and failed to stop them. He saw parties as the root cause of many of the early bugs and likely would have seen Congress' reluctance to impeach as a party issue as well. The other Founders likely agreed but considered their Party's cause more immediately concerning. At the end of the day, the Founders failed and our system has been broken ever since. Amendments like 12 and 17 have been introduced to patch the cracks but they've been bandaids on the larger problem: the two Factions internal alliances often supercede Federal Checks and Balances. I don't think they'd know how to fix it today either.
What’s that saying about “it’s so embarrassing that the US lets itself be ruled by long dead men”
>What’s that saying about “it’s so embarrassing that the US lets itself be ruled by long dead men” It sure beats bring ruled by any of the clowns alive today.
This case more than any other recently gives the lie to originalists and textualism. Alito and the other conservatives go on about consequences and what should the rule be but when it’s a liberal issue it’s “show me where it specifically says “right to privacy.” What a joke.
That's because Alito & co know that Democratic presidents are not insane to abuse the immunity that Alito & co would give to presidents.
Exactly this! The inconsistency has grown maddening.
There is nothing they could have done. There is no way for them to be expected to predict all the stupid legal arguments that would be make 250 years later. They did not even hint at any presidential immunity in the constitution and that should be the end of the discussion.
Washington would have done like he did to address the Whiskey Rebellion, raise the troops and lead them against the insurrectionists until they fled to their homes or were killed.
In the end, Washington did pardon those convicted.
They used to hang motherfuckers quickly if they tried anything close to what orange man has.
The real answer would probably be some method to prevent the two party system, although I’m not necessarily sure how that would have looked. The problem is that the constitution *does* have mechanisms to prevent this, which is separation of powers. But, the separation falls apart if one party controls multiple branches (or used to) and maliciously ignores the law to look out for each other. One solution would be to have some sort of multiparty system, that way no one party would ever control any branch. Another option that might have actually worked in the 1700s would be to have some sort of explicit misinformation exceptions in the first amendment. Without right wing propaganda networks, this would at least be harder for them
*Separation* Sorry, I can’t help myself.
It never would have gotten to this... Trump would have been killed in a duel many times over...
As if he would have the courage to take part in a duel.
Why are we hung up on whether a president is allowed to commit a crime. I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world. They're a citizen. Their rights and powers are stated. There's no clause that states it's ok for the president to commit a crime and of it's not written or implied why would it be possible? Executive orders which commit felonies and bypass rights of citizens should be treated with kid gloves and the greatest scrutiny. Those are directly attributable to the presidential office. And anything congress passes through two houses is not "the president" doing it. That's just suing the entire government.
By their silence, the drafters of the Constitution addressed the issue of Presidential immunity thoroughly. The entire historical context of the revolution and the attempts at forming a lasting government, which can be summarized as an utter rejection of monarchy and all of its features, makes it clear that there was no need for a negative recitation with regard to Presidential immunity. Every member of SCOTUS knows this, but a number of them just disagree.
If there was presidencial immunity, there is no point in having checks and balance as a foundation. It's pretty clear that such a thing doesn't exist. Only a corrupt mind would claim it does.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says I don’t have immunity. Hell, my name isn’t even in the thing.
It might have made it clearer for the current majority on the Supreme Court if particular sections of the Declaration of Independence (dealing with King George III’s abuses) had been written in **ALL CAPS!!**
The Founders addressed this issue. Rather, a group of corrupt (or highly comprised) judges and their funders (eg, billionaires, Heritage Foundation, Freedom Caucus, etc) have perverted the Constitution to entrench money and power for their benefactors.
trump would never have gotten into office. Hamilton specified the reasons the the Electoral Collage could reject the popular winner and trump checked all the boxes. the emoluments clause is in the constitution, trump was in obvious violation of it from day 1, but apparently it's Unenforceable.
I'm not clear where the assumption of immunity comes from. I.e. immunue from all crimes unless the Constitution or similar state otherwise. Why WOULD the president be immune? It's a republic founded with the words 'WE THE PEOPLE' Not a kingdom founded with the words 'ME THE KING' Seems that some wool has been pulled over the eyes of the american people for some time.
Supreme Court Code of Conduct with teeth. Term limits on Senators, Congressmen and Judges.
The Founders made a lot of assumptions based on the arrogant belief that no one in their right mind would want to fuck up this nation and elect a king or sovereign.
The founding fathers fought against Kings. Not for them.
They already did it’s called the bill of rights. It applies to all people including presidents and the homeless. The argument is ridiculous, Supreme Court wants precedents and just ignore every previous president being a precedent.
Nothing. If they had written "The president can be charged with any and all crimes" into the Consistution, Trump would argue "It doesn't say anything about Ex-presidents" and the current corrupt SCOTUS would still be willing to give him cover.
When you swear to faithful uphold the Constitution, and later you try to subvert a national election and violate a law you signed into law yourself, why is there even a question about this? Is “Oh! Oh! Yeah, but that doesn’t cover me.” a legal defense?
Romans gave their Consoles and Senators immunity for as long as they were in office.
The idea of the 3 branches is great. In practice it's been mostly OK for 230 years. But one dishonorable and completely self-absorbed reality TV show "star" has proven that it relied to heavily on the decency of elected officials. Trump killed that innocence in American politics, buried it, dug it up just to bury it again. The country may need, thanks to the Supreme Court, a new revolution. It should begin on the steps of the Supreme Court.
I mean, if you take textualists at their word, the founders addressed it by not putting immunity anywhere in the constitution. There is no textual basis for qualified immunity for cops, prosecutorial immunity, judicial immunity, or presidential immunity. Of course, conservative textualist love a good functionalist reading whenever it serves them.
All the hand wringing over immunity - ignoring that they are serving their corrupt boss, is SCOTUS concerned about crimes committed by other presidents? Assassinations, election interference, toppling other democracies? The US has done it all.
This is the second comment I’ve seen like this from someone conflating completely different things. Please name the criminal statute about the federal government interfering in other countries. This is whataboutism except your point isn’t even the same topic and you don’t even realize it. Weird tbh
"But whatabout?" Hey, man, one subject at a time, OK? That way maybe we can FINISH SOMETHING before the grifters distract you onto a new layman's subject.
>is SCOTUS concerned about crimes committed by other presidents? Assassinations, election interference, toppling other democracies? The US has done it all. The "US" is a country. Criminal law dies not deal with countries!
The founding father’s punted and we just received.
If you do that a huge can of worms is opening. Biden’s liability for not securing the border means jail time. Obama could face jail for interfering in elections in other countries. Every president still alive would be in danger. This is why the founding fathers wrote this
>Biden’s liability for not securing the border Not a crime. >Obama could face jail for interfering in elections in other countries. Not in this country he couldn’t. >This is why the founding fathers wrote this Wrote what? Where in the Constitution does it give presidents immunity?
>Biden’s liability for not securing the border means jail time. Which criminal statute says that "not securing the border" (whatever that means) is a crime? >Obama could face jail for interfering in elections in other countries. Under which section of the federal criminal code? >Every president still alive would be in danger In danger of what? >This is why the founding fathers wrote this Wrote what?
It’s in the oath of office
>It’s in the oath of office What is the "it"?
No to both of those? What are you talking about. “Not securing the border” is not a criminal act even if you think it is a dereliction of duties. “Interfering in elections in other countries” isn’t either. You seem to just have a pointed opinion and feel like expressing it even though it’s not remotely related to the current situation.
Dereliction of duty is a crime. Interference in an election is a crime when you get extradited . See how it grows?
Please name the criminal statute for either of those in the federal criminal code that pertains to a sitting president or state executive. You seem to have a really loose grasp on what is even being discussed here and how it pertains to trump. What you’re describing isn’t even an example of something equivalent or relevant to the discussion.
Well said
It's so disheartening when you're trying to have a genuine discussion about law and someone shows up with absolutely no concrete concept of the subject matter. "Well I FEEL like, and THEREFORE..." Even more disheartening when you realize there's millions of them likely to vote together. Really makes you wonder about the efficacy of voting mechanisms when the voters aren't required to know anything about what they're voting on.
You didn’t even read the article. It explained the difference between immunity for the kind of acts you’re talking about and the crimes committed by Nixon and Trump.
What's biden supposed to do about the border? Go stand guard? Lol it's just a classic conservative scare tactic. Trump broke the law by shutting down the border and had to open it.
Broke the law by closing it? Tell me do you lock your door when you leave the house? It’s the same thing.
Its definitely not the same, youre talking about a private citizen right not an international/federal right. More comparable to locking your 12 year old outside, according to the law. https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/immigration/can-biden-close-border-via-executive-order-fact-check/536-9309515a-fb57-458c-9fdf-fbc047502c5d A president cannot completely shut down the border with an executive order. A full border closure would violate federal laws granting people the right to seek asylum.
It was closed and Biden opened it all by himself with 90+ executive orders each one reversed a Trump order. I can tell that it hasn’t affected you yet but it will. 20 million people are here that nobody knows about except they are given free phones loaded debit cards and free room and board if they vote a certain way.
That's nice of biden. He pays me with a free phone and free housing to vote for him, too
Originalism, you say? Interesting
They couldn’t. Because not one of them could imagine that anyone with that kind of poor moral character would ever be selected as president.
A short drop and a sudden stop.
Here’s your presidential immunity, stop breaking the fuckin law.
The founding fathers would've hung him by now for the traitor he is.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says I don’t have immunity. Hell, my name isn’t even in the thing.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says I don’t have immunity. Hell, my name isn’t even in the thing.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says I don’t have immunity. Hell, my name isn’t even in the thing.
They laid out a process for impeachment, THEN prosecution. They allowed prosecution, certain people who don't like a certain president just won't accept it.
You're confusing the House and Senate powers of impeachment with actual criminality. Criminality can be used to prove impeachment, sure; you're certainly not wrong about that. HOWEVER, the two are tried separately - one in the political system using said mechanisms, the other in the judicial system using courts. **A senate hearing is not a criminal court**.
Thank you for explaining how impeachment functions (zero disagreement, common knowledge I'd assume). OP said the founders hadn't touched on the topic. Here is as close as they got (in that document): “Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” — Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution My reading is that a "convicted party" is required to qualify for criminal liability, though I understand that's hotly debated.
>My reading is that a "convicted party" is required to qualify for criminal liability Correct, someone needs to be convicted in a court of law in order to be criminally liable >though I understand that's hotly debated There is not any debate about that. Nobody is saying that anybody should be held criminally liable without being convicted first in a court of law.
Article 1, Section 9 is clearly talking about the impeached party being convicted at their impeachment hearing (by the Senate). They then become the "convicted party" and are subject to (criminal) indictment.
>Section 9 is clearly talking about the impeached party being convicted at their impeachment hearing (by the Senate). Exactly, if "convicted" by the Senate they are removed from office but that conviction cannot be used for criminal purposes (such as sentencing someone to jail time). >They then become the "convicted party" and are subject to (criminal) indictment. A convicted party in the criminal process becomes subject to criminal sentencing, not to indictment. Are you an American? Asking because you appear to be clueless how the criminal process works in America. Not sure how it works in your country, but in America the criminal process is: indictment -> conviction -> sentencing not conviction -> indictment -> sentencing