General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLooking for an explanation
Forgive my ignorance, but Im a bit puzzled.
Laws, we are taught, are created by Congress and carry the ultimate weight. So how is it that an OLC policy supplants law?
.
watoos
(7,142 posts)Democrats just give in too easily. There is no reason that a sitting president cannot be indicted, how do I know? Freaking common sense.
Funtatlaguy
(10,855 posts)euphorb
(279 posts)It's not even a policy, as such. It's a legal opinion. There is no law regarding whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted. The opinion provides an interpretation of the Constitution. This issue has never been decided by a court, let alone the Supreme Court. In the absence of a governing law or court opinion, a legal opinion sets forth arguments for or against a particular outcome and balances them to come up with a probable conclusion (lawyers draft legal opinions on many topics for clients all the time). The opinion is used as the basis for a policy within the DOJ not to indict a sitting president. Agree with it or not (and I don't), it nevertheless is a valid step to take in the absence of a law or court ruling. Hopefully, the courts will step in soon and provide definitive guidance, which would supplant the OLC opinion.
unblock
(51,974 posts)if the doj policy is not to indict a sitting president, then what case comes to the courts for them to clarify?
who has standing to challenge the doj and say they must indict?
it's really only if the doj tries to indict, then the president challenges it, that a case goes into the court system for them to (possibly) clarify.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)euphorb
(279 posts). . . created by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that reached the conclusion that, under the Constitution, a sitting president could not be indicted. It was based on the idea that the president's duties are so onerous and important (and no one else to carry them out), that to require him to spend time defending himself in court would be an unconstitutional incursion on his ability to carry out his duties. There is no law about this. That's why the opinion was created. I disagree with the conclusion of the opinion (as do many others), but that's what it is, and, for better or worse, it does govern DOJ decision-making.
iscooterliberally
(2,849 posts)Indicting a President is much different than indicting a civilian. They want congress to weigh in and either impeach the president or not. It's really hard to look at things impartially these days. If everyone elects a president and he happens to be a really bad guy, the justice department can't really over throw an election without the input of congress. I think it would be too few people wielding too much power. We need congress to impeach Trump much more than we need Robert Mueller to indict him. I think Mueller would love to indict him though. Personally, I would rather bypass everything and go straight for the tar & feathers, or maybe strap Trump to a rocket and launch him right into the sun.