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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

scipan

(2,341 posts)
21. not clear
Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:06 PM
Jun 2018

The first OLC memo was issued on September 26, 1973, not long before the October 20 “Saturday Night Massacre,” in which Nixon directed officials of the Justice Department to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the top two Justice officials resigned, leaving the dirty work to then-Solicitor General Robert Bork.

That memo considers the Constitution’s text and finds no answer. It says, correctly, that there is no “airtight separation of powers, but rather … a system of checks and balances, or blending the three powers.” The Constitution provides very limited immunities for members of Congress and none for the president. The impeachment clause says that any official impeached can be tried—at least, but not clearly only, after removal. The debates during the framing and ratification of the Constitution suggest that the president is subject to laws like any citizen, but never discuss prosecution in office. During the trials of Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall had insisted that Thomas Jefferson was subject to subpoena—but also that as president he could refuse to attend court in person, and could withhold some evidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/presidential-indictment/560957/

It says the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #1
That's not what the clause means. Adrahil Jun 2018 #5
Exactly, thank you! lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #10
that's the weak argument they're making. it doesn't really imply that, it leaves it open. unblock Jun 2018 #7
It can be read differently, which is why it is a matter of such controversy. tritsofme Jun 2018 #2
I could read it in Klingon or Elvish; that doesn't change what it clearly says. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #11
Well, all it clearly says is that the only restriction is that a pardon cannot apppy to impeachment tritsofme Jun 2018 #17
My OP is not about pardons at all. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #18
Then I misunderstood. tritsofme Jun 2018 #19
Bizarrely, it is indeed a matter of controversy. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #20
You and Stephen Colbert, saidsimplesimon Jun 2018 #26
Article II, Section 2 billh58 Jun 2018 #3
Another interpretation is that the president cannot pardon any party involved in an impeachment case FreepFryer Jun 2018 #4
People forget that many officials are subject to impeachment, not just the President. Adrahil Jun 2018 #6
He also can't pardon anybody else being impeached. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #12
Including Gorsuch. duforsure Jun 2018 #8
ah, yes, the usurping, installed stooge bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #9
We'll be nice. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #13
Good luck proving that there was anything "illegal" about the confirmation of Gorsuch onenote Jun 2018 #14
You've hit the nail on the head bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #15
I don't think you can impeach him legally. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #16
Right; impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #22
I don't think it is possible. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #25
Mathematically, I agree, unfortunately. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #27
not clear scipan Jun 2018 #21
I'm aware of the infamous DOJ memo, lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #24
please let him be gone bdamomma Jun 2018 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"in Cases of Impeachment....»Reply #21