If we had a Democrat in the White House, they'd be all for it.
- Thread starter Guard Dad
- Start date
I think a law making a president immune while in office is dangerous.
However, I don't think we should bog a president down with little stuff. And yes, that should probably include Monicagate.
Chindog
Expert Driver
There is only one remedy in the constitution to address a corrupt president. And it has nothing to do with small government or states rights. Once that is successfully prosecuted, there is no more immunity. Kavanaugh is exactly right, and strictly following constitutional law.
Far West
Pursuit Driver
From the OP (And Maxine Waters is ON it!):
In the article, Kavanaugh did hedge a little by saying that no one in the U.S. is above the law, but added that the Constitution already provides a solution for dealing with a president who breaks the law.
“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available,” he wrote. “In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-presidents-from-prosecution-riles-dems.html
In the article, Kavanaugh did hedge a little by saying that no one in the U.S. is above the law, but added that the Constitution already provides a solution for dealing with a president who breaks the law.
“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available,” he wrote. “In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-presidents-from-prosecution-riles-dems.html
Boss 302
Pursuit Driver
If a sitting president was to be formally indicted for a crime; I'm sure Congress would begin the impeachment process to remove the president from office. I don't think the president should be subject to civil suits while in office. Exceptions could be made that those civil suits could be put on hold until the president left office. Just think about how a group of people could bog down a sitting president with BS civil suits.
lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
Well I think the key is the term "high crimes and misdemeanors." This limits the the kind of crimes that qualify a President for impeachment. The question is then what of other crimes that may not reach such a standard from a Constitutional standpoint? What about crimes like shoplifting or destruction of documents in a civil matter? The Constitution is silent on this. Kavanaugh's statement indicates that these should be ignored.
ETA: Remember that both Starr and Mueller were appointed at the request of Congress and are in fact part of the Constitutional process.
ETA: Remember that both Starr and Mueller were appointed at the request of Congress and are in fact part of the Constitutional process.
Paxilpapa
Serenity, through modern chemistry
The case of Richard M. Nixon comes to mind. I don't think they could come up with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", but they bashed on him until he resigned. The question is, would the new breed of politician do the honorable thing and resign for the good of the people? I think not.
Far West
Pursuit Driver
The House did not impeach Nixon. The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a trial in the House.
The two presidents who were impeached by the House were Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, in 1998, and Andrew Johnson in 1868 — though both were acquitted by the Senate.
Impeachment is the job of the full House, not a committee. The impeachment process against Nixon did lead to his resignation, but he wasn’t formally impeached. Here’s how Joy Hakim, author of the American history series “A History of US,” explained it in the last volume, “All the People”:
In the House of Representatives, articles of impeachment were prepared. President Nixon was charged with lying, obstructing justice, and using the Internal Revenue Service (the tax office) and other government agencies illegally. Nixon was going to be impeached. After that, he would face a trial in the Senate for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” He chose to leave the presidency instead. He resigned as president of the United States (the only man ever to do so).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...linton-and-others-say/?utm_term=.45b6c5961af9
The two presidents who were impeached by the House were Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, in 1998, and Andrew Johnson in 1868 — though both were acquitted by the Senate.
Impeachment is the job of the full House, not a committee. The impeachment process against Nixon did lead to his resignation, but he wasn’t formally impeached. Here’s how Joy Hakim, author of the American history series “A History of US,” explained it in the last volume, “All the People”:
In the House of Representatives, articles of impeachment were prepared. President Nixon was charged with lying, obstructing justice, and using the Internal Revenue Service (the tax office) and other government agencies illegally. Nixon was going to be impeached. After that, he would face a trial in the Senate for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” He chose to leave the presidency instead. He resigned as president of the United States (the only man ever to do so).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...linton-and-others-say/?utm_term=.45b6c5961af9