3 ms·

I see that sort of feeling a lot. The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes; that would be absurd. He is only able to stop enforcing

I see that sort of feeling a lot. The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes; that would be absurd. He is only able to stop enforcing laws in specific cases, arguably including his own. That’s a big difference. Among other things, it means that (1) his successor could reverse that decision and prosecute him and (2) Congress can take matters into their own hand via the impeachment route. So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. However, I’m pretty sure the President hasn’t come within a mile of that so far. The First Anendment is pretty mighty.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
humanrebar 9y ago
> The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes I doubt the president will ever be arrested or tried in a traditional court while holding office. If the president was literally murdering people in public, Congress would have to have an emergency session, impeach the president, remove the president from office, then there'd probably be a trial somewhere that got appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court to decide if it was a valid trial. "The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutio... > So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. There's a legal theory that the president, while serving the duties of the office, is given certain immunities. This is why the president doesn't always respond to subpoenas and why the local government can't issue a search warrant for Air Force One, etc. caveat: I am not a lawyer, though from my reading this isn't a matter of settled law anyway, so even lawyers are speculating.
- afthonos 9y ago
  There are definite immunities at play; the comment I responded to seemed to imply that there was a blanket speech immunity, and the reasoning it provided would have made it a complete blanket immunity. That’s what I was saying wasn’t the case.
bringtheaction 9y ago
> his successor could reverse that decision and prosecute him I agree with most of what you said but are you sure about this part? Does the US not offer protection against retroactive application of new laws?
- afthonos 9y ago
  Yes, the ex post facto clause should provide immunity from prosecution in such cases (IANAL). But that’s not what I was trying to say. I was saying that the President could conceivably break an existing law, not prosecute himself, and then have his successor prosecute him.
  - bringtheaction 9y ago
    Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

humanrebar 9y ago

> The president is not constitutionally incapable of committing crimes I doubt the president will ever be arrested or tried in a traditional court while holding office. If the president was literally murdering people in public, Congress would have to have an emergency session, impeach the president, remove the president from office, then there'd probably be a trial somewhere that got appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court to decide if it was a valid trial. "The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutional-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/politics/a-constitutio... > So, yes, Presidents can definitely break the law, including laws that have to do with speech. There's a legal theory that the president, while serving the duties of the office, is given certain immunities. This is why the president doesn't always respond to subpoenas and why the local government can't issue a search warrant for Air Force One, etc. caveat: I am not a lawyer, though from my reading this isn't a matter of settled law anyway, so even lawyers are speculating.

afthonos 9y ago
There are definite immunities at play; the comment I responded to seemed to imply that there was a blanket speech immunity, and the reasoning it provided would have made it a complete blanket immunity. That’s what I was saying wasn’t the case.

bringtheaction 9y ago

> his successor could reverse that decision and prosecute him I agree with most of what you said but are you sure about this part? Does the US not offer protection against retroactive application of new laws?

afthonos 9y ago
Yes, the ex post facto clause should provide immunity from prosecution in such cases (IANAL). But that’s not what I was trying to say. I was saying that the President could conceivably break an existing law, not prosecute himself, and then have his successor prosecute him.
- bringtheaction 9y ago
  Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.