• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

S.C. ignored the proper venue to try President for crimes (presidential immunity case)

J

johnwk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 27, 2019
Messages
2,170
Reaction score
314
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
.
Yesterday, 4/25/2024, our Supreme Court, when hearing oral arguments concerning Trump and presidential immunity, they totally dropped the ball in ferreting out the constitutionally authorized venue to try a President for an alleged crime.


The truth is, our Constitution provides for the House to allege a crime, and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred. If the Senate finds a crime has been committed, then the president can be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.


Generally speaking, in the case of a president committing a crime, the House and Senate act in a manner similar to that of a Grand Jury.


There is no other venue, other than Congress, mentioned in the Constitution to deal with a President who violates the law, and since the Constitution does provide that venue, it appears that is the proper venue to deal with a president who acts criminally while in office.


Why was the impeachment process added to our Constitution? One reliable source answering that question is Madison:


"Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings." See: Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense


The bottom line is, the issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was included in our Constitution under the impeachment process, and our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.


JWK


Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
 
johnwk said:
and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

The Senate, during an impeachment process, doesn't act as a grand jury. That's what the House does. The Senate acts as a court to determine guilt or innocence. And, after that process, the DOJ has nothing to do with anything...at least, that's how it's been up until someone decided they want to have a trial for something Trump did while he was President. And that's where we are right now.

What the Supremes are considering is whether or not a President can be be put on trial for something that was done while they were the President.
 
johnwk said:
.
Yesterday, 4/25/2024, our Supreme Court, when hearing oral arguments concerning Trump and presidential immunity, they totally dropped the ball in ferreting out the constitutionally authorized venue to try a President for an alleged crime.


The truth is, our Constitution provides for the House to allege a crime, and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred. If the Senate finds a crime has been committed, then the president can be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.


Generally speaking, in the case of a president committing a crime, the House and Senate act in a manner similar to that of a Grand Jury.


There is no other venue, other than Congress, mentioned in the Constitution to deal with a President who violates the law, and since the Constitution does provide that venue, it appears that is the proper venue to deal with a president who acts criminally while in office.


Why was the impeachment process added to our Constitution? One reliable source answering that question is Madison:


"Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings." See: Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense


The bottom line is, the issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was included in our Constitution under the impeachment process, and our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.


JWK


Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
Click to expand...


If this were true, are you suggesting the greatest punishment a president could face for commiting ANY crime is removal from office? If a president murdered their spouse, the worst punishment would be removal from office?
 
BlueTex said:
If this were true, are you suggesting the greatest punishment a president could face for commiting ANY crime is removal from office? If a president murdered their spouse, the worst punishment would be removal from office?
Click to expand...
No. Impeachment and conviction is the prerequisite to criminal liability for official acts. The President has no immunity for personal acts like murdering his spouse.
 
Napoleon said:
No. Impeachment and conviction is the prerequisite to criminal liability for official acts. The President has no immunity for personal acts like murdering his spouse.
Click to expand...

Awww.. So the whole "venue" bullshit by the OP is just more MAGA fantasy?
 
Napoleon said:
No. Impeachment and conviction is the prerequisite to criminal liability for official acts. The President has no immunity for personal acts like murdering his spouse.
Click to expand...
Suppose a hypothetical president orders someone to murder their spouse, then.

Someone who is normally charged with following their orders, because they are President.
 
The Mark said:
Suppose a hypothetical president orders someone to murder their spouse, then.

Someone who is normally charged with following their orders, because they are President.
Click to expand...
That falls into the same category as bribery discussed at length in oral arguments. Some things, like bribery, involve both official acts and personal acts. A President is always liable for personal acts.
 
Napoleon said:
That falls into the same category as bribery discussed at length in oral arguments. Some things, like bribery, involve both official acts and personal acts. A President is always liable for personal acts.
Click to expand...

Are any of the charges covered by Smith offical acts?
 
Napoleon said:
Sauer was specific in oral arguments. Did you listen to them?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I listened.. YOU are making the argument so which ones do YOU think are official acts? I'm not interested in what Sauer is arguing...
 
BlueTex said:
Yeah, I listened.. YOU are making the argument so which ones do YOU think are official acts? I'm not interested in what Sauer is arguing...
Click to expand...
So the answer is NO you didn’t and what Sauer argued is the position being by the Court so you should care.
 
Napoleon said:
So the answer is NO you didn’t and what Sauer argued is the position being by the Court so you should care.
Click to expand...

Sauer argued that a president could order his rival assassinated and that would be an official act. Do you agree with Sauer?
 
BlueTex said:
Sauer argued that a president could order his rival assassinated and that would be an official act. Do you agree with Sauer?
Click to expand...
Of course, and that’s just common sense. The President’s orders are official acts in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The possibility that a President could order something unlawful in that official act has always been known - that’s why the UCMJ requires the military to refuse such orders.
 
While the Constitution does not explicitly grant presidential immunity, legal precedents and historical practice have shaped the concept of immunity for both civil and criminal matters. The issue remains a subject of legal debate and interpretation.

The Libs on the SC and the Libs of DP keep bringing up murder which is their usual hyperbolic nonsense to divert form the subject. Whataboutism is the miantstay of Democrats. We are not talking about murder sop let's drop that. If a president does have immunity, then what does he have immunity from? If he doesn't have immunity, let's go after Obama, Clinton and Bush before they die.
 
Napoleon said:
Of course, and that’s just common sense. The President’s orders are official acts in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The possibility that a President could order something unlawful in that official act has always been known - that’s why the UCMJ requires the military to refuse such orders.
Click to expand...
Presidents can assassinate political rivals? That's an official Presidential act?? You fascist authoritarians have no clue what kind of country you're trying to turn America into with this kind of bullshit thinking. Try reading a book.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Presidents can assassinate political rivals? That's an official Presidential act?? You fascist authoritarians have no clue what kind of country you're trying to turn America into with this kind of bullshit thinking. Try reading a book.
Click to expand...
Put your listening ears on. Giving orders to the military is an official act in the President’s capacity as commander-in-chief. It’s the military’s job to assess the lawfulness of those orders and refuse to carry out unlawful orders. It is the job of Congress to impeach and convict Presidents for such things after which time they can be held criminally liable. If all of those checks and balances fail then the question of immunity is moot.
 
Napoleon said:
Of course, and that’s just common sense. The President’s orders are official acts in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The possibility that a President could order something unlawful in that official act has always been known - that’s why the UCMJ requires the military to refuse such orders.
Click to expand...
Suppose a President were to order an unlawful act, and it was carried out, even though it violated the UCMJ.
Obviously we would hope that those who carried that order through were prosecuted, but...

Are there no consequences for the person who gave the unlawful order?
 
The Mark said:
Suppose a President were to order an unlawful act, and it was carried out, even though it violated the UCMJ.
Obviously we would hope that those who carried that order through were prosecuted, but...

Are there no consequences for the person who gave the unlawful order?
Click to expand...
Whom are you expecting will hold the President criminally liable if he and the military succeed in overthrowing the government?
 
Napoleon said:
Of course, and that’s just common sense. The President’s orders are official acts in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The possibility that a President could order something unlawful in that official act has always been known - that’s why the UCMJ requires the military to refuse such orders.
Click to expand...

Why would he need the military to have a rival assassinated?
 
Napoleon said:
Whom are you expecting will hold the President criminally liable if he and the military succeed in overthrowing the government?
Click to expand...

And if the assassins are not military?
 
Napoleon said:
It’s not a question of need.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... Are you under the impression that only the military can assassinate someone? You ARE starting to sound like Sauer....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom