Does the Constitution prevent the President from being indicted for a criminal act?

[martybegan]

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

 

[Faun]

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

 

[Care4all]

Ken Starr just said Presidents can be indicted.... it's simply a justice department policy, not to and Robert Mueller is an institutional-ist, and will follow the Justice dept policy.

 

[candycorn]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

 

[Lesh]

Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.

If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.

Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.

Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached. Or the other way 'round: Andrew Johnson was impeached for something that could not have been an indictment --- defiance of the Tenure of Office Act passed the year before (which Johnson regarded as unConstitutional). He could have been removed from office had that impeachment succeeded, but he could not have been convicted.

STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

"...not so much the executive branch"? Why not? Can't the swamp be a corrupt organization? Do you believe all people are equal, but republican members or the Trump Administration and the President himself are more equal?

It's about the office, not the person. Nothing in this scenario prevents the person from being indicted and tried after they are removed from office, or their term expires. Reading the constitution, however, it does seem to imply that the impeachment/removal should happen before the subsequent trial at the lower jurisdiction.

This does apply more to the two elected spots, President and VP, but "Officers of the United States" is usually seen to mean senate approved members of the cabinet, so they may get the same protection.

So what stops a President who is corrupt from bribing 34 Senators and then pardoning them for taking that bribe?

 

[Marion Morrison]

STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

"...not so much the executive branch"? Why not? Can't the swamp be a corrupt organization? Do you believe all people are equal, but republican members or the Trump Administration and the President himself are more equal?

It's about the office, not the person. Nothing in this scenario prevents the person from being indicted and tried after they are removed from office, or their term expires. Reading the constitution, however, it does seem to imply that the impeachment/removal should happen before the subsequent trial at the lower jurisdiction.

This does apply more to the two elected spots, President and VP, but "Officers of the United States" is usually seen to mean senate approved members of the cabinet, so they may get the same protection.

So what stops a President who is corrupt from bribing 34 Senators and then pardoning them for taking that bribe?

The amount of money it would take, probably. Senators take the most bribes out of all politicians, you didn't know? How many? 34? At least $50K apiece...possibly double that.

They shouldn't have that kind of money, and neither should the president. (from doing their jobs)

 

[Lesh]

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

"...not so much the executive branch"? Why not? Can't the swamp be a corrupt organization? Do you believe all people are equal, but republican members or the Trump Administration and the President himself are more equal?

It's about the office, not the person. Nothing in this scenario prevents the person from being indicted and tried after they are removed from office, or their term expires. Reading the constitution, however, it does seem to imply that the impeachment/removal should happen before the subsequent trial at the lower jurisdiction.

This does apply more to the two elected spots, President and VP, but "Officers of the United States" is usually seen to mean senate approved members of the cabinet, so they may get the same protection.

So what stops a President who is corrupt from bribing 34 Senators and then pardoning them for taking that bribe?

The amount of money it would take, probably. Senators take the most bribes out of all politicians, you didn't know? How many? 34? At least $50K apiece...possibly double that.

They shouldn't have that kind of money, and neither should the president. (from doing their jobs)

So the only protection we have against a corrupt President bribing his way out of Impeachment is the amount of money it would take? Do you honestly think that someone as supposedly rich as Trump couldn't come up with 34 million or even 68 million to bribe 34 Senators???

One or two milion a piece would buy a lot of Senators

 

[Lesh]

The politics and judicial entanglements in something like that would be insane. What do you think th "honest Republicans" would do if they found out that fix was in and that the vote was going to be in the corrupt politicians favor?

You think they would "Buck the party"? They'd be voted out next time round. So then when you have that block all voting to not impeach you need investigations on all of them. THAT ought to be a real circus sorting out which ones took bribes and which didn't.

Welcome to American politics

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Hmm, no, it's a political process.

 

[martybegan]

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

Usually the other jurisdiction tries to make it seem the second charge is a related, but distinct crime. The current case makes it seem that even this is going by the wayside.

It's a similar overreach to civil asset forfiture, where the government in the case of separate sovereigns tries to get a 2nd bite at the apple, and in the case of forfeiture, tries to get a bigger bite.

 

[martybegan]

STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

"...not so much the executive branch"? Why not? Can't the swamp be a corrupt organization? Do you believe all people are equal, but republican members or the Trump Administration and the President himself are more equal?

It's about the office, not the person. Nothing in this scenario prevents the person from being indicted and tried after they are removed from office, or their term expires. Reading the constitution, however, it does seem to imply that the impeachment/removal should happen before the subsequent trial at the lower jurisdiction.

This does apply more to the two elected spots, President and VP, but "Officers of the United States" is usually seen to mean senate approved members of the cabinet, so they may get the same protection.

So what stops a President who is corrupt from bribing 34 Senators and then pardoning them for taking that bribe?

The fact that the best he could do is then wait out his term and then get charged federally for bribery.

Plus one would hope the people would rise up.

 

[martybegan]

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Hmm, no, it's a political process.

It's a legal process that in the past has been used for political purposes.

The process is enshrined in the Constitution, making it the legal process to remove a President from Office.

 

[Faun]

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

Usually the other jurisdiction tries to make it seem the second charge is a related, but distinct crime. The current case makes it seem that even this is going by the wayside.

It's a similar overreach to civil asset forfiture, where the government in the case of separate sovereigns tries to get a 2nd bite at the apple, and in the case of forfeiture, tries to get a bigger bite.

I expect they will rule in line with every other decision on the matter. Like Palmer v. State ...

The United States is constitutionally prohibited from putting any person in jeopardy of life or liberty twice for the same offense; likewise, the State of Georgia is bound by the rule against double jeopardy.[1] These provisions protect a person not only from multiple punishments by a single sovereign for the same offense but also from successive prosecutions by a single sovereign for the same offense.[2] It is well settled, however, that when a person in a single act breaks the law of two sovereigns, such as the United States and the State of Georgia, the person has committed two distinct offenses and may be prosecuted and punished by each sovereign for the violation of its law.[3] Under this *192 doctrine of dual sovereignty, successive prosecutions by two separate sovereigns for the same offense do not violate double jeopardy.​

 

[martybegan]

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

Usually the other jurisdiction tries to make it seem the second charge is a related, but distinct crime. The current case makes it seem that even this is going by the wayside.

It's a similar overreach to civil asset forfiture, where the government in the case of separate sovereigns tries to get a 2nd bite at the apple, and in the case of forfeiture, tries to get a bigger bite.

I expect they will rule in line with every other decision on the matter. Like Palmer v. State ...

The United States is constitutionally prohibited from putting any person in jeopardy of life or liberty twice for the same offense; likewise, the State of Georgia is bound by the rule against double jeopardy.[1] These provisions protect a person not only from multiple punishments by a single sovereign for the same offense but also from successive prosecutions by a single sovereign for the same offense.[2] It is well settled, however, that when a person in a single act breaks the law of two sovereigns, such as the United States and the State of Georgia, the person has committed two distinct offenses and may be prosecuted and punished by each sovereign for the violation of its law.[3] Under this *192 doctrine of dual sovereignty, successive prosecutions by two separate sovereigns for the same offense do not violate double jeopardy.​

My issue with that is why does each soverign have laws about the same crime. The whole idea of Federalism is to break up the responsibilities of various levels of government, and prosecuting crimes is one of them.

 

[sealybobo]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

George bush once said it can’t be illegal because I’m the president

 

[Faun]

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

Usually the other jurisdiction tries to make it seem the second charge is a related, but distinct crime. The current case makes it seem that even this is going by the wayside.

It's a similar overreach to civil asset forfiture, where the government in the case of separate sovereigns tries to get a 2nd bite at the apple, and in the case of forfeiture, tries to get a bigger bite.

I expect they will rule in line with every other decision on the matter. Like Palmer v. State ...

The United States is constitutionally prohibited from putting any person in jeopardy of life or liberty twice for the same offense; likewise, the State of Georgia is bound by the rule against double jeopardy.[1] These provisions protect a person not only from multiple punishments by a single sovereign for the same offense but also from successive prosecutions by a single sovereign for the same offense.[2] It is well settled, however, that when a person in a single act breaks the law of two sovereigns, such as the United States and the State of Georgia, the person has committed two distinct offenses and may be prosecuted and punished by each sovereign for the violation of its law.[3] Under this *192 doctrine of dual sovereignty, successive prosecutions by two separate sovereigns for the same offense do not violate double jeopardy.​

My issue with that is why does each soverign have laws about the same crime. The whole idea of Federalism is to break up the responsibilities of various levels of government, and prosecuting crimes is one of them.

No one cares about your "issues."

The states are not the United States but are 50 sovereign republics within the United States, which is a separate sovereignty. The states share concurrent jurisdiction with the United States, which is a separate sovereign. Some laws are duplicated and someone violating a law which exists among both sovereign entities can be prosecuted by the same law emanating from both sovereigns without violating double jeopardy.

And there is precedent which supports dual sovereignty in the United States. We never know how the Supreme Court will come down on a ruling, but I would be surprised to see them veer off of precedent and the doctrine of dual sovereignty.

 

[Lesh]

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

Usually the other jurisdiction tries to make it seem the second charge is a related, but distinct crime. The current case makes it seem that even this is going by the wayside.

It's a similar overreach to civil asset forfiture, where the government in the case of separate sovereigns tries to get a 2nd bite at the apple, and in the case of forfeiture, tries to get a bigger bite.

I expect they will rule in line with every other decision on the matter. Like Palmer v. State ...

The United States is constitutionally prohibited from putting any person in jeopardy of life or liberty twice for the same offense; likewise, the State of Georgia is bound by the rule against double jeopardy.[1] These provisions protect a person not only from multiple punishments by a single sovereign for the same offense but also from successive prosecutions by a single sovereign for the same offense.[2] It is well settled, however, that when a person in a single act breaks the law of two sovereigns, such as the United States and the State of Georgia, the person has committed two distinct offenses and may be prosecuted and punished by each sovereign for the violation of its law.[3] Under this *192 doctrine of dual sovereignty, successive prosecutions by two separate sovereigns for the same offense do not violate double jeopardy.​

New York is somewhat more restrictive but not enough to save either Manafort or Trump

 

[Lesh]

So what stops a President who is corrupt from bribing 34 Senators and then pardoning them for taking that bribe?

The responses I have gotten so far

"It's too expensive"...no it's not. For a billionaire to buy his freedom if he so chooses? Hardly

and shrugs.

Clearly that IS a problem and clearly is shows that impeachment can NOT be the only remedy nor is Impeachment laid out in the Constitution as the ONLY remedy.

 

[martybegan]

We will see.

Gamble v. United States - SCOTUSblog

Typically the laws shouldn't overlap, because the purpose of separate sovereignty is that each government has its own sphere of law.

This is not new. Appellates have petitioned courts before to dismiss the case against a n the grounds if violated double jeopardy and courts have rejected that argument when charges stem from both state and federal levels.

U.S. v. Contreras-Cisneros, 297 Fed. Appx. 659 | Casetext

Usually the other jurisdiction tries to make it seem the second charge is a related, but distinct crime. The current case makes it seem that even this is going by the wayside.

It's a similar overreach to civil asset forfiture, where the government in the case of separate sovereigns tries to get a 2nd bite at the apple, and in the case of forfeiture, tries to get a bigger bite.

I expect they will rule in line with every other decision on the matter. Like Palmer v. State ...

The United States is constitutionally prohibited from putting any person in jeopardy of life or liberty twice for the same offense; likewise, the State of Georgia is bound by the rule against double jeopardy.[1] These provisions protect a person not only from multiple punishments by a single sovereign for the same offense but also from successive prosecutions by a single sovereign for the same offense.[2] It is well settled, however, that when a person in a single act breaks the law of two sovereigns, such as the United States and the State of Georgia, the person has committed two distinct offenses and may be prosecuted and punished by each sovereign for the violation of its law.[3] Under this *192 doctrine of dual sovereignty, successive prosecutions by two separate sovereigns for the same offense do not violate double jeopardy.​

My issue with that is why does each soverign have laws about the same crime. The whole idea of Federalism is to break up the responsibilities of various levels of government, and prosecuting crimes is one of them.

No one cares about your "issues."

The states are not the United States but are 50 sovereign republics within the United States, which is a separate sovereignty. The states share concurrent jurisdiction with the United States, which is a separate sovereign. Some laws are duplicated and someone violating a law which exists among both sovereign entities can be prosecuted by the same law emanating from both sovereigns without violating double jeopardy.

And there is precedent which supports dual sovereignty in the United States. We never know how the Supreme Court will come down on a ruling, but I would be surprised to see them veer off of precedent and the doctrine of dual sovereignty.

I doubt the founders ever expected the federal and State levels to have laws against the same thing. To them the federal government's scope was far smaller. Remember the FBI is a modern invention, not something created directly by the constitution.