SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts

[Invisible Man]

But it [drunkenness] is not a crime.

It is not an ordinary crime, but it could be a high crime.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It is not an ordinary crime, but it could be a high crime.

Yeah, Willie Nelson has committed high crimes for years.

 

[Invisible Man]

Yeah, Willie Nelson has committed high crimes for years.

I see what you did there.

But my point was that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is not limited to things that are illegal. Immoral acts that might qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors for the POTUS might be things that Willie Nelson could do and not be answerable for them to anyone at all except his own conscience and his Creator.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But my point was that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is not limited to things that are illegal.

I agree.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But the executive does oversee the DOJ, and capital punishment wasn't exactly uncommon back when the document was written. So that statement hinges entirely on the difference between the definition of "execution" and "assassination".

No doubt you're using your own definitions. But I have never agreed with your definition of any word in the language.

LOL

I guess you don't even remember the part about no depriving people of life without due process.
I'm not surprised, your Constitutional understanding is entirely based on your current desires.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Your insurmountable problem is that SCOTUS will not review the actions of the Senate; the Nixon case makes that quite clear, and your attempt to distinguish it by the fact that the case dealt with a procedural issue is unavailing. From the Nixon decision:





This is one of the safeguards the Court pointed out:

SCOTUS ruled about questioning the Senate's procedure, it said nothing about not having a valid charge, let alone not challenging it at the House stage.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But being the commander in chief is a core Constitutional power of the executive branch. And people are killed in war without a trial all the time. The whole point of immunity is to protect someone from prosecution of a crime. Bill Cosby was promised immunity from prosecution in order to get him to testify in a civil trial against him. That doesn't mean what he was accused of doing wasn't a crime.



The only person redefining anything is you. You are pretending that being immune from prosecution for a crime means that it wasn't a crime in the first place and therefore one can't be impeached either. That's just utter nonsense.

Killing foreigners in a war without due process is not the same thing as killing American citizens without due process, especially outside of war.

And you keep trying to drag this back to immunity, it's not about the immunity part of the ruling, it's the part about Congress being unable to criminalize core powers.

 

[acptulsa]

LOL

I guess you don't even remember the part about no depriving people of life without due process.
I'm not surprised, your Constitutional understanding is entirely based on your current desires.

Do you ever run out of straw? The scarecrow you're building, as usual, looks more like yourself...

Killing foreigners in a war without due process is not the same thing as killing American citizens without due process, especially outside of war.

Where does the Constitution say, "...except during a war"?

 

[jmdrake]

Killing foreigners in a war without due process is not the same thing as killing American citizens without due process, especially outside of war.

Can'd you freaking read? Anware Al Awlaki was an American citizen!

And you keep trying to drag this back to immunity, it's not about the immunity part of the ruling, it's the part about Congress being unable to criminalize core powers.

You'e got it backwards! Core powers allow immunity from otherwise criminal acts. It does not make them not criminal. But I don't expect you to ever understand that if you can't even understand that Obama killed an American citizen and not a foreigner!

 

[jmdrake]

SCOTUS ruled about questioning the Senate's procedure, it said nothing about not having a valid charge, let alone not challenging it at the House stage.

SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the constitutionality of the Senates impeachment decision. No authority to question constitutionality means no authority to question constitutionality.

All of this shows your glaring contempt for the separation of powers. The only reason that its okay to give the executive branch immunity for prosecution in the judicial branch is that the legislative branch has full sole authority on impeachment. If there had been the political will to impeach President Obama for the killing of American Citizen Anwar Al Awlaki or for spying on the trump campaign that would have been a good thing. But there wasn't the political will to do that.

 

[jmdrake]

[MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION], even Trump's team acknowledged that the core powers doctrine didn't protect him from impeachment! Their argument was that he couldn't be held liable for official acts unless he was first impeached! From the opinion.

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. Brief for Petitioner 16.

The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.
Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. For example, Justice Story reasoned that without the Clause’s clarification that “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833). James Wilson, who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979). And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.
The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution.

Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.​

 

[Sonny Tufts]

SCOTUS ruled about questioning the Senate's procedure, it said nothing about not having a valid charge, let alone not challenging it at the House stage.

The Court's rationale applies to all aspects of an impeachment trial.

Are you seriously suggesting that an accused could appeal to SCOTUS regarding some alleged impropriety in the House proceedings? SCOTUS wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Read Nixon again -- the Framers deliberately didn't involve the Court in the impeachment process, although there were proposals to do so:

The Framers labored over the question of where the impeachment power should lie. Significantly, in at least two considered scenarios the power was placed with the Federal Judiciary. See 1 Farrand 21-22 (Virginia Plan); id., at 244 (New Jersey Plan). Indeed, James Madison and the Committee of Detail proposed that the Supreme Court should have the power to determine impeachments. See 2 id., at 551 (Madison); id., at 178-179, 186 (Committee of Detail). Despite these proposals, the Convention ultimately decided that the Senate would have "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. According to Alexander Hamilton, the Senate was the "most fit depositary of this important trust" because its Members are representatives of the people. See The Federalist No. 65, p. 440 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). The Supreme Court was not the proper body because the Framers "doubted whether the members of that tribunal would, at all times, be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task" or whether the Court "would possess the degree of credit and authority" to carry out its judgment if it conflicted with the accusation brought by the Legislature-the people's representative. See id., at 441. In addition, the Framers believed the Court was too small in number: "The awful discretion, which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons." Id., at 441-442.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Do you ever run out of straw? The scarecrow you're building, as usual, looks more like yourself...



Where does the Constitution say, "...except during a war"?

What part of the word "especially" do you not understand?
It doesn't say it OK in a war, it just says that no appeal can be made to war powers as is commonly done when there isn't even a war.

I guess your understanding of English is just as weak as your understanding of the Constitution.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Can'd you freaking read? Anware Al Awlaki was an American citizen!



You'e got it backwards! Core powers allow immunity from otherwise criminal acts. It does not make them not criminal. But I don't expect you to ever understand that if you can't even understand that Obama killed an American citizen and not a foreigner!

You are the one who can't read, I was saying that Killing Al Awlaki was an impeachable offense because he was an American citizen.

You keep trying to drag in immunity, we are talking about the part that says uses of core power that are not High Crimes and Misdemeanors are not crimes and cannot be made so.
Assassinating an American is absolutely a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

 

[Swordsmyth]

SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the constitutionality of the Senates impeachment decision. No authority to question constitutionality means no authority to question constitutionality.

No, SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the process used in the Senate for the impeachment trial, that's all it said.

All of this shows your glaring contempt for the separation of powers. The only reason that its okay to give the executive branch immunity for prosecution in the judicial branch is that the legislative branch has full sole authority on impeachment. If there had been the political will to impeach President Obama for the killing of American Citizen Anwar Al Awlaki or for spying on the trump campaign that would have been a good thing. But there wasn't the political will to do that.

You are the one trying to destroy the separation of powers by exalting Congress over the Constitution and eliminating the checks and balances on it.
The Congress has the power of impeachment, but only for specific misconduct "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
The Senate has sole authority to run the trial, the House (where impeachments must arise) doesn't have sole authority over what qualifies as an impeachable offense, that is defined in the Constitution and cannot be changed without an Amdendment.

Both the assassination and the spying were High Crimes and Misdemeanors and should have been used to impeach, they also should be prosecuted now.

 

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth, even Trump's team acknowledged that the core powers doctrine didn't protect him from impeachment! Their argument was that he couldn't be held liable for official acts unless he was first impeached! From the opinion.

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. Brief for Petitioner 16.

The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.
Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. For example, Justice Story reasoned that without the Clause’s clarification that “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833). James Wilson, who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979). And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.
The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution.

Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.​

Yeah, and if Trump had committed Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors the core powers doctrine would not protect him.
Where it would protect him is when he did not commit any of those offenses but Congress attempted to impeach him for legitimate uses of his core powers which they may not remove from him without a constitutional amendment.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Court's rationale applies to all aspects of an impeachment trial.

Are you seriously suggesting that an accused could appeal to SCOTUS regarding some alleged impropriety in the House proceedings? SCOTUS wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Read Nixon again -- the Framers deliberately didn't involve the Court in the impeachment process, although there were proposals to do so:

Yeah, SCOTUS doesn't try impeachments.

But the House doesn't have sole authority to expand on the Constitutionally defined charges and SCOTUS would absolutely have a place in determining that impeachment for anything but the Constitutionally defined charges was invalid.
The Senate only has sole authority to try impeachments for Constitutionally defined charges.

You have to at least fake up a High Crime or Misdemeanor charge to impeach.

 

[acptulsa]

What part of the word "especially" do you not understand?
It doesn't say it OK in a war, it just says that no appeal can be made to war powers as is commonly done when there isn't even a war.

I guess your understanding of English is just as weak as your understanding of the Constitution.

Different flavor, same hypocrisy.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, and if Trump had committed Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors the core powers doctrine would not protect him.
Where it would protect him is when he did not commit any of those offenses but Congress attempted to impeach him for legitimate uses of his core powers which they may not remove from him without a constitutional amendment.

And here you fall into your own circular reasoning trap. "Other high crimes or misdemeanors." A misdemeanor is any crime that is punishable by less than one year. Clearly the "core powers" doctrine would keep him from being prosecuted for a misdemeanor committed while executing a core power but it would not protect him from impeachment. This is the crux of your misunderstanding of this entire issue. Again, let's go back to the example of Anwar Al Aawki. He was an American Citizen. The group he was with when he was killed was not covered by the AUMF to go after those who carried out 9/11 or harbored them. No evidence was ever presented to show he was involved in terrorism. Yet, based on nothing but Obama's statement that he ad taken an "operational role" in a drone strike, he was put on a drone list and killed. Based on the core powers doctrine Obama can't be prosecuted but he could have been impeached. If someone says "no" then one has to consider all of the times the government has cried "terrorism" when it wasn't true, like when the intelligence services said Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and then, as soon as Trump was out of office, said that wasn't true. And consider all of the people who have been accused of being "Russian agents" from Donald Trump to Tulsi Gabbard to Julian Assange. If there is not some accountability for the abuse of putting someone on a terror watch list and then killing him without trial then we're in trouble. But recklessly or intentionally ordering the killing of someone who isn't a terrorist is not treason. It's not bribery. Sure it's another high crime (murder) but who decides if it's impeachable? Why the Senate does of course.

 

[jmdrake]

No, SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the process used in the Senate for the impeachment trial, that's all it said.

Wrong. You are just wrong. This is DIRECTLY from the opinion Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) at page 255.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.​

You are fooling nobody but your self. What part of "NO JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT" do you NOT understand?

You are the one trying to destroy the separation of powers by exalting Congress over the Constitution and eliminating the checks and balances on it.

You are just lying at this point.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions

A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.​