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
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
16. The issue of benefits is governed by statute, not the Constitution
Mon Feb 15, 2021, 01:12 PM
Feb 2021

The Constitution is silent on this. Former presidents are provided benefits pursuant to statute, specifically 3 U.S.C. § 102

The Former Presidents Act provides that former presidents are entitled to a pension and office and travel budget. It also explicitly excludes presidents who have been removed through impeachment from receiving those benefits. All other former presidents - including those who have been impeached and convicted but not removed from office - are entitled to receive those benefits.

This is an unfortunate loophole in the law. Obviously - and not surprising, because who would have thought - the drafters did not anticipate a president being impeached while in office but convicted after leaving office and therefore not subject to removal. But that's the law. It can be amended to cover any president who is convicted, but the new version would only apply to future presidents since, once someone becomes entitled to the benefits, they cannot be revoked.

As for Secret Service protection, this is covered under a different statute, which provides lifetime protection to all former presidents, regardless how they left office.

It would have prevented him from running again. Turin_C3PO Feb 2021 #1
It wouldn't have prevented him from running again StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #2
I agree, wouldn't have stopped him at all. Irish_Dem Feb 2021 #4
Good points. Turin_C3PO Feb 2021 #5
Exactly StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #8
1) Disqualification from holding office Under The Radar Feb 2021 #3
Why do you think disqualification from holding office would have stopped him from running StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #6
Chump "runs" because he grifts from the campaign donations FakeNoose Feb 2021 #7
It would at least sever his campaign fundraising abilities signifcantly msfiddlestix Feb 2021 #9
My thoughts StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #11
On the question of benefits post removal msfiddlestix Feb 2021 #15
The issue of benefits is governed by statute, not the Constitution StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #16
Well, that's most unfortunate. msfiddlestix Feb 2021 #17
It is unfortunate, but there's still hope for some accountability StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #18
I don't get all this focus on the final vote when one main benefit was embarrassing Republicans servermsh Feb 2021 #10
And I don't get why you believe that an "impeachment committee" is the only way to expose evidence StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #12
We're all adults here. We all knew the MAGATS would never convict their GOD EMPEROR DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2021 #13
If the Marmalade Fuck Face runs again, of course he will win Albama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and world wide wally Feb 2021 #14
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Assume for the sake of ar...»Reply #16