Prosecuting the President
Some have suggested the President cannot be prosecuted, unless Congress agrees. This note destroys that flawed notion.
Ref VA extradition procedures.
Prof. Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University has written on this subject; the citation for his law review article is [ 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1049; From Pillar to Post: The Prosecution of American Presidents; American Criminal Law Review American Criminal Law Review Summer, 2000 ] [ Contact info ] The President may be prosecuted by the States for passing the illegal Military Commissions Bill and his other criminal activity. The information below can be read as a parallel approach to other state options to prosecute the President for war crimes. [ Draft War Crimes Indictement ] You may wish to discuss these issues here at Crooks and Liars. Requested Action Share with your friends: There is a lawful way for any one (1) of the fifty (50) states to prosecute the President. It only takes one. Three states have already discussed proclamations calling for Congress to investigate the President. This is different, it is a state criminal action that will by pass Congress completely. |
Important: Content below has additional comments here: [ click ]. [ Discussion ]
Under Article III Section 2, State Attorney Generals may lawfully enforce Presidential violations of state criminal statutes by prosecuting the President before a jury supervised by the Supreme Court.
[Revised: May be revised without notice.]
Authorities
Jones V. Clinton
Article III Section 2
106 U.S. 196 Supreme Court has jurisdiction: "cases where a state is a party on the record the question of jurisdiction is decided by inspection."
[ 143 U.S. 207, relying on Horner v. United States, 143 U.S. 207 ] States may enforce state law against individuals residing outside the state, but who have violated state law, as the President has done through the wires.
[ 202 U.S. 344 ] Convicted Constitutional officer's status remains up to the Congress to decide; whether someone convicted and punished for a crime is a separate matter than whether someone is removed from office.
[ 408 U.S. 606 ] Acts of Constitutional officers subject to criminal process. Illegal acts cannot be immunized, only pardoned. The President cannot pardon himself.
[ 418 US 283 ] President is not immune to criminal process: Executive Privilege gives way to subpoenas discovery, and law enforcement on issues of violations of criminal law.
[ 424 U.S. 409 ] Qualified immunity only applies to civil complaints, and is a meaningless defense or bar to criminal prosecution.
[ 424 US 409, n33 ] State Attorney Generals, US Attorneys, and JAGs may lawfully prosecute the President without fear of civil suit by the President.
[ 493 F.2d 1124 ] Prosecution of Federal Officials, without/before impeachment, is Constitutional.
[ 681 F.2d 706 ] Official acts may be prosecuted.
[ 716 F. Supp. 38 ] Any preferences not mentioned in the Constitution cannot be recognized.
Others: See notes Ref for likely DoJ objections to the above, and a complete discussion as to why all DoJ Staff counsel defenses of the President are without merit.
Argument
1. Article III Section 2 provides states Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on matters between a state and a civil officer.
2. Article 1 Section 8 Congressional power to tax is not an exclusive federal power, nor does the Constitutional delegation of taxing power to Congress prohibit states from enacting tax laws and enforcing them at the state level.
3. Congress does not have the absolute power to convict; it only has the exclusive power to impeach and start proceedings to remove a President from office. Whether Congress does or does not impeach is not absolute bar to whether a President is or is not subject to the law.
4. Both the President and Vice President have engaged in a course of conduct that recognizes that they are subject to state law.
4A. The President has engaged in discussions with Texas State officials over jury duty, leaving open the possibility the President has agreed to assent to state laws.
4B. The Constitution requires the President and Vice President to be residents of different states. Vice President Cheney is fully qualified to be President, and his residency in Wyoming confirms he agrees that he cannot be a resident of the State of Texas. Unlike Texas residents who may choose not to pay Texas State taxes, Vice President Cheney is required to file taxes in the State of Wyoming.
5. There is precedent for monarchs and kings to retain their title and position of power despite their having been convicted of crimes and sentenced to jail.
6. There is precedent in American law for state level prosecutions of Executive Officials including the Vice President for violations of state law. One Vice President was indicted by a state grand jury for violating state law.
7. Although Sovereign immunity applies only to the United States, it is not an absolute bar to prosecution. Jones v. Clinton establishes the precedent that a sitting President can be lawfully tried in a court without Congressional involvement.
The way forward:
The state attorney generals should immediately be encouraged to being presenting their charges to the US Supreme Court, consolidate the cases, and demand a jury trial, per Article III section 2 which affords a jury trial for all criminal cases.
The resulting picture would look like this:
This approach would solve the following problems:
Discussion
Clearly, the above is unconventional. However, the problem is one perception. If we were to presume that Congressional action or inaction on the issue would decide whether a sitting President is subject to criminal prosecution, then this turns justice on its head: It would ask that we only enforce the law if the voters agree to elect representatives that will investigate and enforce the law. However, the idea of a Republic is the opposite: So that elected officials will, because of their ability to rise above the day to day distractions, enforce the law against all domestic threats, as is their oath.
A Constitution, and whether it is or is not enforced, is not something that can be cast to the winds simply because the elected and voters choose to ignore the law; or that the popular vote chooses to not ensure that elected officials are in office to enforce that law. Rather, the Constitution is a creature that must be protected, and shall be protected, regardless whether the voters do or do not vote to elect a majority to the House that chooses to enforce that Constitution.
Sovereign Immunity
Any act of Congress that gives POTUS immunity from prosecution by anyone is arguably unconstitutional. Congressional role in Presidential crimes is arguably only relevant for purposes of removing the President. However, the Constitution is silent on matters of Presidential crimes when Congress chooses before the gathering of any evidence to refuse to enforce the law.
Arguably, when the State level laws are violated, a President is subject to state level prosecution. If there was no threat of prosecution, the President and Vice President cannot explain their concern with state level laws that relate to taxes and jury duty. Arguably, by substantially complying with state level tax and jury laws, the President and Vice President have opened themselves to any and all enforcement of any other state law.
Impeachment
Article 1 Section 8 Taxing law does not create an absolute, sole, exclusive power of only the Congress to tax. Rather, this is a permissive power, and not an absolute bar against the state from exercising the same power.
Arguably, the same applies to the criminal statutes. Again, the Constitution grants the Congress the exclusive power to impeach with the purpose of removing the President from office if convicted in the Senate; however, this impeachment power is not an absolute bar against the states from enforcing state level criminal laws against the President.
No argument can be made that any law or Act of Congress which creates Presidential immunity to violate of State law is constitutional. Rather, by permitting violations of state law, the US has failed to honor its requirement to ensure the States shall enjoy a republican form of government in the state. Arguably, by permitting the Executive to exercise judicial power he has not only violated the US Constitution’s separation of powers, but has also violated State laws and Constitution. This creates standing for the States to bring criminal charges against the President to the Supreme Court.
Article 1 Section 8 is not a bar against the States from enacting criminal laws against refusing to pay state taxes. Similarly, the Article II powers of impeachment is not an exclusive delegation of all legal enforcement on the Congress; rather, it is merely a first step, which Congress has exclusively been delegated the power, to lawfully remove the President from office.
A state level effort to prosecute the President is consistent with the Constitution, and does not infringe on any Congressional impeachment powers. Unlike the power of the Congress to remove a President, a state level prosecution would recognize that the ultimate penalty against the President, because it was not an impeachment, could not include removing the President from office. However, this bar to state-level-removal is not, as are the tax laws, an absolute bar against enforcing state level criminal statutes against Executive Officers including the Vice President and President. Burr was convicted by the State; and both this President and Vice President recognize the applicability of state law when they voluntarily participate in state-level tax and jury-related matters. It is too late for the DoJ Staff to claim that the President and Vice President, despite substantially agreeing that they remain subject to state level tax and jury laws and penalties, are suddenly immune to suit on all other state level criminal charges.
Jones v. Clinton reminds us that a President is not absolutely immune to suit. Further, Members of Congress as creatures of the Constitution may lawfully be indicted by state and Federal Grand Juries in re dueling [Vice President Burr], attacks on Federal officers [Congressman McKinney], or bribery [Congressman Jefferson, Louisiana]. Official acts of Government officials are also not immune to suit. Similarly, no President can expect to remain immune to state level efforts to enforce state criminal laws. House Rule 603 reminds us that a President may lawfully be indicted by a Grand Jury. The only issue for Congress to decide is whether to use that indictment as a basis to remove the President from office by impeaching him.
English criminal law also has the precedent of having indicted, prosecuted, and jailed Kings. Once jailed, the King, as sovereign, did not lose his title or his crown. Rather, he remained a King. Any argument that the President, through the principle of sovereign immunity is not subject to criminal sanctions while President is contrary to even the standards applicable to Kings who have been jailed.
Any act of Congress that creates any Presidential immunity against states enforcing state criminal laws is arguably not Constitutional. This would deprive the states of their guarantee to a republican form of government, and deprive the state of the power to see that its laws are faithfully enforced, and that all state citizens enjoy the equal protection of having all state laws in all 50 states uniformly enforced and prosecuted.
Whether Congress chooses to impeach or not impeach; or enforce or not enforce federal law is irrelevant to whether the states may or may not enforce state criminal laws. Just as the President has no choice in whether he does or does not enforce the law, so too does he have no choice in not complying with state law. Again, that the Congress chooses not to enforce the law, investigate, or bring charges against the President for purposes of removal is a separate matter. Rather, the only issue is whether the President can reasonably be sure that he is immune to prosecution simply because he is a federal officer. The law is clear: All laws shall be enforced, and no President is above the law.
DoJ Staff attorneys and the US Attorneys have no power to thwart the states from enforcing state law. If the DOJ Staff wish to assert that the President is immune to suit, this argument fails: Clinton was sued while in office.
The proper road is for the States to challenge in the Supreme Court the Constitutionality of any and all actions the President, DOJ Staff, and US Attorneys may take to prevent the States from enforcing state laws and ensuring the states have a viable republican form of government, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
By referring to the President as some sort of sovereign to claim that the President is absolutely barred from prosecution while in office fails. Even a King could and has been jailed despite sovereign immunity. The President’s problem, even if DoJ and others were to treat him as a King, would have the dilemma of expecting to be treated like a King, but at the same time being above the sanctions which kings were subjected to: Jail time, while still retaining their position as King.
The only immunity to suit, which is not absolute, is against the United States. Even Congress recognizes that there are some wrongs which must be remedied through litigation, and there is no absolute claim on sovereign immunity. Moreover, once any President or King violates the law and openly discusses those violations, he loses privilege related to that evidence, conduct, and other illegal activity.
Whether the US Attorneys or DoJ Staff do or do not wish to enforce the law is irrelevant. Rather, arguably, the DoJ Staff and US Attorneys, through their malfeasance, have permitted a conspiracy to flourish, and have essentially been complicity in violation of state criminal statutes and international law. Under state rules of evidence like Maine, unlike the Federal Rules of evidence, once a party changes their position, that is evidence of their original negligence. Unlike Federal law which generally finds a dispute is moot once the problem has been corrected, the original problem or violation against the State law remains a subject of state law which the Supreme Court will have to recognize as the controlling law, not Federal law.
The Constitution recognizes the power of the States to make laws and draft rules of evidence. This President’s problem is that he’s violated State criminal laws, but wants to remain immune to suit. This is against public policy in that it undermines the Constitution, and effectively destroys the document from which he derives his limited power.
One’s requirement to follow and enforce the law is not subject to the whim of Congress, not contingent upon Congressional action or inaction, but is contingent upon the law itself.
Even if we were to assume that the President, by being charged by a state, was involved in an impeachment proceeding, the Constitution still recognizes that the President’s liability for criminal conduct regardless the Action or result of Congress on impeachment still subjects the President to criminal liability:
The party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. [Article I Section 3]”Arguably, this cannot be narrowly read to mean that the potential for criminal liability is only subject to whether the President is or is not subjected to Congress; rather, the opposite is true: The President is always subject to criminal liability and punishment under the law. Congress has no say on whether the President is or is not subject to the law: Only the President, when he took his oath, removed the discretion, and promised to enforce the law and be subject to This Constitution. The only issue is whether that punishment, according to Congress, warrants his removal. A state level prosecution of the President in the Supreme Court in no way interferes with the Congressional power of impeachment, but complements the remainder of Article I Section 3 which ensures that the President remains subject to suit, as any King would be, and jailed upon conviction of those crimes.
Congress is not the exclusive forum or body who may charge the President with crimes. He can be indicted by a state grand jury; other international actors can bring charges in a war crimes tribunal. The only exclusive role Congress has is not in charging the President with a crime, but whether that criminal conduct will or will not result in removal from office. This act of removal is so sever, that the means to do it is separated between the House which charges the President, and the Senate which conducts the trial on that decision to remove or not remove.
However, this does not mean that the decision to charge the President with a crime is only up to the discretion of the House. In practice, everyone including the states may subject the President to sanctions under the law. The question is whether the States will or will not assert this power, and compel the Supreme Court to make a decision: Will it hear criminal complaint against a sitting President, or will they treat the President as if he is outside the courts, and not subject to the potential threat of punishment that Kings faced: The threat of jail time, while still retaining control of the Crown.
Arguably Article 1 Section 3 subjects POTUS to other criminal sanctions regardless the outcome or non-outcome of impeachment. Impeachment action or non-action is not a condition precedent in order for the law, in general, to be enforced against the President.
The power to prosecute violations of the law is not at the whim of the President or the discretion of the Congress. Rather, these duties, responsibilities, and obligations rest with all people. As it stands, this President has shut down DoJ OPR investigations, and apparently told the US Attorneys not to bring suit against him for war crimes and other violations of the criminal statutes. However, Congress cannot rely on this lack of enforcement of state law as a precedent or condition to permit Congress or the DoJ Staff to intrude on the state efforts to enforce the law against the President.
Just as Article 1 Section 8 was not an exclusive power of taxation delegated only to the Federal government but not the States, so too is the power to enforce the law: Not something that only the Congress does or doesn't do. Rather, it is a duty and obligation of all government officials, whether they work in the federal, state, or local government. The 10th Amendment arguably guarantees the right of the states to exercise all prosecutions against anyone who violates state law, even the President. Rather, the states have retained any and all powers to prosecute all crimes against anyone, without intruding on exclusive Congressional powers to remove the President from office.
The power of impeachment of the House is not an absolute bar to enforcing state criminal laws against the President. Arguably, this is an exclusive power of the Congress and does not apply to a state-level initiated prosecution against the President for violation of state criminal statutes.
In practice, Grand Juries through House Rule 603 have already issued indictments against Federal Officials. There is no basis for anyone to argue that Congress has the exclusive power to exercise judicial review of Presidential Conduct. They have only the power to decide whether or not to start proceedings to remove the President. However, the Judicial branch and the states may launch independent efforts to lawfully prosecute those Presidential violations. It is one thing to prosecute and remove from office; it is a separate matter to prosecute and simply jail a head of state, permitting them to retain their position of power, then letting them resume their duties upon completion of their sentence.
Again, it is one thing to prosecute the President for illegal conduct; it is a separate matter for Congress alone to decide whether hat conduct is or is not sufficient to warrant removal. However, the reverse does not apply: The exclusive power of Congress to remove the President, does not mean, and cannot mean, that Congress has the absolute power to bar anyone else from enforcing the law, either Federal or State law. To permit this outcome would be to permit the Congress to engage in exclusive judicial review of Presidential violations of the law, and violates the Federal Separation of power, not to mention the violation of the state’s guaranteed right to a republican form of government which enforces the law and separates power and does not recognize absolute power by anyone, even Presidential power.
Arguably, it is not an official act and against public policy to not enforce the Constitution and law. Rather, Congress’ refusal to enforce the law is not a precedent against the States from enforcing state law.
Congress only has the exclusive power to remove the President, not the exclusive power to decide when or if the state-level criminal statutes will or will not be investigated or enforced. Congress has no delegated power to prohibit prosecution of the President by the states; nor does Congress have absolute power to decline to enforce state law. This is outside Congress’ jurisdiction, and entirely consistent with the McCulloh v. Maryland precedent.
Rather, it is against public policy to decline to enforce the law, or use that malfeasance as precedent to put anyone above the law; or make Congressional malfeasance the absolute bar against the States from enforcing state criminal statutes. This result, if accepted, would destroy the Constitutional guarantee, which the United States is obligated to meet, of ensuring the states’ republican form of government is protected, respected, and provided a remedy when wronged. The only remedy to this wrong is to permit the States to bring criminal charges, with the express goal of working around Congress and lawfully prosecuting the President while recognizing he remains president while he sit in jail.
The states have the power to bring prosecutions, and mutually enforce through extradition from one state to another anyone who has violated state law. Those Members of Congress, US Attorneys, and DOJ Staff that thwart law enforcement efforts by any state shall be subject to state level prosecution, detention, and rendering to any other state that bring charges.
This President is a fugitive. He has defined international law. All states may lawfully refuse to provide any aid, comfort, assistance or protection to a fugitive. To provide any assistance, comfort, or aid to this fugitive that currently sits as a clerk in the oval office would subject those state officials to sanctions for aiding and abetting criminal activity, and otherwise thwarting prosecution.
Arguably, any state employee cooperation with the President will be a subsequent basis for the State attorney general to indict that state citizens for [a] assisting others in violating state laws; and [b] obstructing the State attorney general from enforcing state criminal statutes. It remains a separate matter how the State Attorney Generals will or will not prosecute federal law enforcement officials for obstructing state-level criminal statute enforcement; or how the US Attorneys, DoJ Staff will be prosecuted.
State Disciplinary Board: State Attorney General Targeting DoJ Staff
State level officials like DoJ Staff attorneys are state-level-regulated attorneys and subject to State-level attorney discipline. We find nothing in the Constitution that thwarts the States Attorney Generals from sharing information about which DoJ Staffers are assigned to which state bar; or sharing information and evidence of DOJ Staff complicity in violating state laws.
Whether the DC Bar chooses to enforce or not enforce the standards of conduct against the DC Bar is another matter. However, their refusal to support lawful state action against criminals would amount to a serious, reportable violation under the Attorney standards of conduct in any state or jurisdiction.
Where the states are guaranteed through the Constitution the right of a republican form of government, there has to be a remedy when that right is violated. Arguably, Congressional assent to Presidential assertion of judicial power combined with their refusal to investigate the matter amounts to an imminent and ongoing interference with the states’ guaranteed right to enjoy separation of powers; and constitutes a federal intrusion into the state’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to have its separation of power respected by the President and President, and permit the States to enforce state laws against all who violate those criminal statutes, whether they be on the streets of Maine, or sitting in the oval office passing wind.
If the US Attorneys will not enforce the law, and otherwise permit POTUS to illegally exercise judicial power without restraint, then the States have been denied their guaranteed republican form of government, and the state citizens have been denied the equal protection of having that guarantee enforced against all who violate that guarantee. Arguably, there is no reasonable basis to deny the states of any right or power to bring charges against anyone, including the President, who violates their Constitutionally guaranteed state right to a republican form of government.
A sitting President is subject to suit, a can be indicted by a state or Federal Grand jury. How that indictment is enforced, and what the Consequences for those violations is a different matter. Yes, some may argue that the President cannot be subject to criminal prosecution, and that only the Congress may bring charges. However, this is a misreading of the Constitution: The Constitution defines the US Geneva Treaty obligations as being the Supreme Law of the land; and under Geneva any nation, outside the whim of Congress, may lawfully prosecute the President for war crimes and violations of international law. It stands to reason that the same Constitution would also respect the power of others to bring charges for violation of domestic criminal law.
Rather, it is the lack of jail time that encourages Executives to violate the law, more egregiously when they believe that by Controlling the Congress they control whether they are or are not subject to the law. Again, this is unconstitutional.
The precedent is clear: The President is not absolutely immune to suit. Nor is the Congress in the position to prevent the state level criminal statutes from being enforced. There is no credible claim by either DoJ, the White House, RNC, or the Congress that the States are intruding on the President’s absolute power to remain above suit; or that only Congress may charge the President. This is a misreading of the Constitution. The only power exclusively delegated to the Congress has nothing to do with absolute power to enforce the law, but the narrow question of whether the President shall or shall not be removed from office. Outside this fitness for duty issue, which the Senate has the final say, Congress is not in any position to deny the States from enforcing state level law, especially when the President’s violations of state criminal statutes is pervasive, well known, and Congress refuses to enforce.
The state should find that the President is a fugitive. All fifty states have questioned the President’s absolute power to, without state governor permission, require state citizens perform mandatory federal military service during natural disasters. The Governors are willing to stand up. The question is whether one state governor or one attorney general realizes that they have the power to do what has already been done to kings: Prosecute them and jail them, while still recognizing that they remain the head of state while sitting in jail.
DoJ’s problem is that it cannot define which laws the President is immune; nor can they state that the President is absolutely barred from being indicted by a grand jury. The DoJ Staff and US Attorneys, for the most part, have no idea whose names could be on the Grand Jury indictment.
DoJ has the responsibility to show that the President should be treated better than a king; or why the President cannot be jailed and still be treated as President.
It is not a credible argument to say that only the US attorneys may bring suit or bring charges. The Constitution expressly defines situations whether the States may bring original suit in the US Supreme Court. We see no evidence, despite this Constitutional provision permitting state suits, that the US Attorneys suddenly become part of the state level prosecution team. Rather, the State Attorney General has the absolute power to decide how that case would be litigated against the President in the Supreme Court.
Article II Section 2 also says there shall be a trial by jury. When the states bring suit, there is nothing Congress can do to undo that Constitutional jury requirement; nor say that the President cannot be tried by a jury that is under the expert guidance of the Supreme Court. How those jury members are selected and empanelled remains a matter for the Supreme Court, not the Congress, to decide.
There is no question that despite the President sitting in the oval office, he has committed crimes in states. Even if there were confusion over whether that crime was committed in the District of Columbia or the states, the Constitution guides us where the States can bring suit: In the Supreme Court.
Congress has accepted, through Geneva, that any nation may try war crimes. Congress has no discretionary power to immunize anyone for illegal conduct when those matters are outside the narrow power of Congress to regulate: The Constitution itself. Arguably, because these proceedings are outside impeachment, Congress similarly has no power to thwart enforcement of state law, nor interfere with criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court against the President.
Nothing is an absolute bar to suit. The method to indict and prosecute the President is through the State Attorney General enforcing state criminal statutes. The way forward is to decide which state-level criminal statutes the President has violated; and which States want to join forces to combine their complaint into a single prosecution; and which want to successfully stay in reserve to continue hound the President, with successive criminal prosecutions, for his reckless disregard for the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government for the states.
The current situation is grave. The President continues to violate international and domestic criminal statutes. Many others in the US Attorneys office, DoJ Staff, and Executive Branch and Legislature are complicit in this illegal activity. If the above action does not work, then the way forward is to include the above requirement within a New Constitution:
The issue going forward, if the above approach is rejected, is how to timely make changes to the New Constitution so that there are timely mechanisms to move when all the political actors fail to enforce the law or protected the Constitution:
Summary
The President has illegally violated Federal and State criminal statutes. State laws, when violated; trigger State Attorney General interest and jurisdiction.
This President, by exercising judicial review, has denied the states of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to enjoy a republican form of state government. This President’s criminal activity violates the Constitutional guarantee.
The Stats should be permitted and encouraged to prosecute the President in the US Supreme Court, and try the President before an empanelled Jury. The only role the Supreme Court would play is to supervise the Proceedings. Whether the Jury decides to convict and punish the President in no way immunizes him from other prosecution for other state or international crimes. He can only be tried for each charge once; this does not mean that he can only be tried if Congress agrees it is convenient.
The Civil War reminds us that when the states do not agree, the incorrect approach is to take to the battlefield, or leave the Union. Rather, the right approach is to remain a strong union, and subject all people, even the President, to the law. Kings have been jailed, and still retained their crown. This President should be prosecuted by the States before the Supreme Court, jailed, and lawfully permitted to remain President until his term ends in 2009. His replacement will be on fair notice: Even if you control Congress, the states are fully prepared to prosecute the next acting-President and jail him or her as well.
It is a clearly established right in Article IV of the US Constitution that the States are guaranteed a right to a republican form of government. The appropriate remedy, when Congress refuses to impeach, is to permit the states to prosecute the President and see that he is jailed. This is entirely consistent with the Constitution, and in no way infringes upon the Exclusive power Congress has been delegated to remove the President from office. It is one thing to remove someone from office; quite another to remove them from power, and recognize that they remain in office. He may be President, but he can still be punished, even if Congress refuses to act.
Some ask how this can possibly be: That the President will be in jail. It was good enough for Kings. Even if this procedure “interferes” with the President in performing his duties, that is something that the DoJ Staff and US Attorneys should have though about in 2001 before the agreed to permit these violations.
DoJ’s problem is that by permitting these abuses to continue, they’ve made their job that much more complicated. This was their choice: To not enforce the law, and remain silent while the clerk in the oval office broke wind.
There is no reasonable basis to argue that Congress may pass, enforce, or prevent the President from being charged by the State in the Supreme Court. The matter is not related to an impeachment, and is consistent with the Constitution which requires the United States guarantee to all states a republican form of government. This would not permit the US Attorney, DoJ Staff, or Congress to pass a law which would permit that guarantee to be subject to the whim of Congress or the voters.
Congress has no power to block the states from enforcing state criminal states against the President. A civil suit was possible against President Clinton.
The President’s course of conduct has substantially recognized the state level statutes as controlling authority when it comes to issues of taxation and jury service. Any argument that the President is absolutely barred from suit is at odds with the precedent as applied to Kings. Even if we were to presume the President were a king, why is he asking his peers in the Republican party to treat him with greater deference than showed to Kings who were otherwise jailed and retained their title? Perhaps the RNC should simply confess to how they view the clerk in the oval office: He is more of a King, but a divine God, not subject to any jail time for egregious violations of international law or state criminal statutes.
If that is the case, then we need not wonder why God is upset. We are one nation under God, not Gods.
Choose your God.
posted by Constant @ 3:46 PM
<< Home