One vote in Congress could be the difference between Obamacare or not Obamacare, declared war on Libya or not declared war on Libya, etc and yet even on the way to (or during) the session in which that would be decided, a Senator or Representative could be arrested for a felony, treason, of breach of the peace. Nobody can replace that vote. If Obama is arrested at any point, Joe Biden takes over and the function of the President is never interrupted. Furthermore, most functions of the President can be done at his leisure. He doesn’t have one day when he has to either veto a bill or not; he has 10 days. That would give him plenty of time to be arrested, be out of jail on bail, and decide whether to veto a law (for instance). I just don’t see that the argument being used here makes sense.
And even more seriously, I see at least 3 different places in the Constitution where imperatives are used without including an exception for the President (all cases, all crimes, no state shall, the powers... are reserved). So not only does the rationale for the exception not make sense, it is not stated in the Constitution and IS contradicted in at least 3 places in the Constitution.
In the end, what it comes down to is that the Constitution has been interpreted as if those imperatives didn’t exist - resulting in a case where the President is NOT subject to the same due process as everybody else, and where persons who are victimized by the felony of a President are NOT given equal protection of the laws. I have a problem with that.
I also have a problem with law enforcement being subject to politics. We have all seen the fruit that bears. I actually do believe that the Founders could see a crook like Obama being in office, although I think they would have thought he would only BECOME a crook after his powers went to his head. Given the belief that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, I very much doubt that they intended to make the President answerable only to the people who need his goodwill in order to get laws signed. That’s the recipe for the Chicago Mob, and the Founding Fathers had just been through a bloody war undoing the damage of lawlessness on the part of an unchecked political player (King George).
The states don’t have power to get Congress to impeach. And what kind of mixing of state and federal would it be, if to prosecute a state crime the feds have to be involved? When I report the crimes of Obama and Bob Bauer in the states in which they occurred, how is Congress going to even know there are impeachable offenses at the state level? Do I send my affidavits to every member of Congress too? If so, it’s an asinine arrangement. And I don’t believe it is intended by the Constitution. The Constitution certainly never says that, and I’ve pointed out at least 3 mandates in the Constitution that refute that interpretation.
How would the state provide equal protection to the woman in the rape scenario I gave, if Congress didn’t know about the rape charges, didn’t care, or voted “not guilty” out of sheer political expedience with the excuse that it was just about - tee hee - sex?
And you and I both know that’s exactly what would happen because we’ve seen clear proof of obstruction of justice and perjury that was totally blown off for political reasons. Is that really what our Founding Fathers wanted? Law enforcement handled by politicians? You’ve acknowledged what we all know: that politics will trump justice every time. If the Constitution planned for law enforcement to be politicized to such a point that the President is above the law, then they totally screwed up everything they said the system was supposed to be built on: checks and balances, separation of powers, and the rule of law rather than the rule of men - all critical to the nation’s survival because absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don’t believe they were that stupid, and that is why 3 mandates were included which rule out the President being above the law because of mere politics.
If the justifying Constitutional concern was about the POTUS being unable to perform his Constitutional duties during a potentially long criminal trial, then what difference does it make if it is Congress that is doing the trial rather the courts?
The courts could subpoena the records from Hawaii, the passport office, selective service administration, social security administration, Occidental, and Harvard just as efficiently as Congress could. It wouldn’t even take any testimony from Obama to come up with a conviction; his affidavits speak for themselves. The trial could be over very quickly without taking any of Obama’s time, unless he wanted to be there to see the testimony by others, or if he thought something he said could prove his innocence.
And f the courts tried the case, Congress would then be able to conduct the business of the country rather than doing what our judiciary was set up AND CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED to do. If it’s important for the POTUS to be available to do his job, particularly in a crisis, then how important is it that CONGRESS not be pulled away from their duties - including the duty to declare war?
I won’t go into the part about you calling me a b!tch and suggesting that I was as bad as the enemies of the Constitution because I’ve decided Obama is guilty and don’t want him to get due process. I DESPERATELY want him to have due process, just like anybody else would get - which is a Constitutional guarantee in the 14th Amendment.
Why doesn’t that surprise me?
In the end, what it comes down to is that the Constitution has been interpreted as if those imperatives didn’t exist - resulting in a case where the President is NOT subject to the same due process as everybody else, and where persons who are victimized by the felony of a President are NOT given equal protection of the laws. I have a problem with that.
Your argument is with the courts then. Your remedy is through the Legislative branch which makes it a political solution. Unless you want to roll out the guillotine.
I also have a problem with law enforcement being subject to politics.
No doubt, what is your remedy if it isn’t political?
I won’t go into the part about you calling me a b!tch
That’s good, because I never called you one, just pointed out you liked to engage in it without offering any solutions. You have offered none here either, just analysis of the issues. OK, I get it, now what is YOUR solution. Absent that, there is little point in continuing.