"Who's being naïve, Kay?"
Posted on 01/18/2024 7:42:48 AM PST by hcmama
This is incorrect, even judges have been removed from the bench for illegal activity. The immunity from prosecution for everyone has a limit, even the President. It depends on the circumstances of the case, which must be reviewed independently each time. So far, the DOJ has always resisted in charging a sitting President with crimes, but that has always been explained as simply a policy, not a Constitutional limitation. During Trump's impeachment, his own lawyers said any judgement should wait for the legal courts to decide, once he was no longer President.
As I said in my reply, the Supreme Court is not going to tip the scales to either side. NO ONE will get absolute, eternal immunity, full stop. Not the President, not the DOJ. Any disputes between them will be analyzed and resolved on a case by case basis, as it should be.
Right now, Trump's argument on immunity seems to be, him calling for a protest of the electoral college vote was a Presidential action, and as such, he has full immunity for anything he considers a Presidential action. Well hold on just a minute, right? Who even said that calling for a disruptive protest of the electoral college vote is a Presidential action? That has be analyzed, and determined if it is worthy of immunity or not. It might be, but it might not.
Unfortunately, yes. That's the downside of having a representative republic. Even the Founders and Framers understood that we need moral people in office. That's why the Federalist essays are full of fear of tyrants and despots assuming power. That's why they feared the larger states banding together to invade the smaller states.
If such a case as you hypothesized were to actually happen, the result should be obvious to all, total ostracization from civil society à la OJ Simpson. We don't have an Elba to exile fallen leaders to, but a president who does as you suggest would not be allowed to have a public life anymore in this country.
Just look at how Richard Nixon lived the rest of his private life. If Ford hadn't pardoned him, would someone have prosecuted Nixon after he resigned? We'll never know but does anyone think he would have spent his later years strutting around Key Biscayne? Nixon did the interview with David Frost because he needed the $600,000 they paid him. He had to sell his Key Biscayne home. He was disbarred by the New York State Bar Association. Nixon visited the UK and was shunned by most of the leaders there. Nixon did rehabilitate his image somewhat in the mid 1980s, but he was a broken man.
That's what would happen to a person who violates their oath of office to such a degree as is being discussed here.
-PJ
Well we’ll have to disagree then. Tyrants can get in power, and they shouldn’t be granted a protection that’s not explicitly in the Constitution, and nothing remotely like this Presidential immunity theory Trump is floating is in the Constitution. It would be abused, which is why the USSC will quickly strike it down, and require that Trump must argue for immunity on each individual charge, separately. On the charge of calling for a protest of the electoral college vote that disputed the proceeding, I think he has zero chance of getting it declared that him calling for a protest was a Presidential action. Thanks.
Let's suppose that we make a president separate presidential actions from non-presidential actions. Is traveling to a campaign fundraiser a presidential action since it's not directly affecting current government administration but is for a potential second term of actions? Should a president have to pay the cost of using Air Force One for non-presidential actions?
On the other hand, if he's president 24x7x52 weeks a year, then everything he does is a presidential action. He can't turn it on and turn it off.
And I'll add that separation of powers would suggest that the president alone gets to decide what is or is not a presidential action. Congress can disagree and launch oversight investigations, but a Congressional bill called the Presidential Actions Act that defines what is core and non-core presidential actions will not be constitutional.
And the courts cannot initiate actions on their own. Somebody has to bring a case first, which brings us back to the argument that universal presidential immunity stops these cases from being brought. However, immunity will not stop Congress for conducting oversight and taking actions of its own against the administration, such as defunding departments or programs that a president is abusing, or refusing to confirm new appointees or impeaching inferior officers.
-PJ
That's fine. I'm not the type to badger someone until they agree with me. I'm the type who states my case until all sides have been explored, and then let the readers decide for themselves.
-PJ
In my opinion, yes. I've long held this belief on this exact issue. I believe it to clearly be the conservative, limited government, position.
if he's president 24x7x52 weeks a year, then everything he does is a presidential action.
I disagree. What Clinton was doing with Monica was not an official Presidential action. It may not have been illegal, as she was barely of consenting age, but that was an immoral action unworthy of the Presidency.
I'll add that separation of powers would suggest that the president alone gets to decide what is or is not a presidential action.
This is what Trump is arguing. That even calling for a million man protest of the official Electoral College vote is somehow an official Presidential action, by him simply declaring it to be an official Presidential action. I don't agree. I don't think the courts will either.
I'm the type who states my case until all sides have been explored, and then let the readers decide for themselves.
I appreciate our detailed conversations, and always respect your opinions. Thanks.
It is a ridiculous thought that murder of a political opponent is ok. That is not a constitutional power granted a president. It is an obvious high crime and misdemeanor.
The ridiculous is what is the basis of this question.
On the other hand, President Trump is charged with inquiring about an election, which is a perfectly legitimate presidential concern. There is no comparison with an obvious capital crime.
"Who's being naïve, Kay?"
So, your position is that murder of a political opponent IS ok and legal??? That’s entirely different than saying that it does or doesn’t happen. It would be a high crime and misdemeanor.
Great movie, btw. One of my favorites.
No, just saying it does happen.
Agreed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.