Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

myohmy2

(3,118 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:12 AM Mar 2019

A nation of laws?

I'm an untrained layman, so correct me if I'm wrong...

If a sitting President can not be indicted for a crime and is subject only to impeachment in the Constitution then wouldn't that mean a sitting President could commit as many federal crimes as he wanted if he could somehow avoid impeachment?

Let's pretend Al Capone were our President. Couldn't he have his mob commit as many federal crimes as they wanted and if charged with those crimes he could pardon them all? And if there weren't enough votes in the Senate to convict our Al Capone President and remove him from office wouldn't his actions be legal? And then what would happen if our Al Capone President decided to claimed a fictitious national emergency and declared there would be no more federal elections until further notice? Legal?

Wouldn't that make us a nation of men not laws? Our Al Capone President, like a dictator, would be above the law. Then we really would be a nation of men, not laws.

...just asking...

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A nation of laws? (Original Post) myohmy2 Mar 2019 OP
You are correct sir with one caveat. Yavin4 Mar 2019 #1
or if their last name ends in "-linton". unblock Mar 2019 #4
Gotta hang the socks up to dry. BBL. n/t rzemanfl Mar 2019 #2
indeed. supposedly, if a president committed such overt crimes as murder on tv, unblock Mar 2019 #3
thank you... myohmy2 Mar 2019 #5

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
1. You are correct sir with one caveat.
Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:20 AM
Mar 2019

Only when the president is a NOT an African American. When the president is an African American, then wearing a tan suit is grounds for impeachment.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
3. indeed. supposedly, if a president committed such overt crimes as murder on tv,
Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:28 AM
Mar 2019

then even a highly partisan congress would impeach and remove.

note that the authoritarians who insist a sitting president can't be indicted generally agree that he can be indicted as soon as he is no longer in office. then again, there are a few who are so extreme they think almost anything a president does falls under executive privilege or general immunity for carrying out official acts. but most would agree, at least, that "ordinary" crimes committed while someone happens to be president would be indictable once the president is no longer in office.

personally, i think the idea that a president enjoys even temporary immunity is ludicrous. the constitution neither makes nor implies any such statement.

the president is not the only federal official subject to impeachment, and other such officers have already been indicted while still in office, so why should a president be any different?

a civil case against a president has been allowed to proceed while the president was still in office (jones v. clinton) so why should a criminal case be any different?

a president has already been charged with a crime and paid for the offense (a traffic ticket, but still...) so why should a "bigger" crime be any different?



and, of course, it's preposterous to allow a sitting president to enjoy immunity for crimes committed that may have enabled him to steal the office and/or keep it. imagine a sitting president kidnapping some congresspeople's children and keeping them hostage, with death threats on them should they try to impeach and remove him.

finally, imagine what our founders intended. one of the biggest design principles of the constitution was to try to minimize the chance of having a tyrant. it's completely crazy to think they would have approved the idea of giving the most powerful person on the country even temporary immunity from all laws.

they didn't revel against a tyrant to create a tyranny.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A nation of laws?