4 ms·
On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to furthe
by awb 2y ago
On paper it makes sense. The people elect a congress charged with checking the powers of the President. States can also pass constitutional amendments to further limit or define the powers of the President.
In reality, power can be consolidated to the point where these checks and balances no longer work properly.
- lupire 2y agoAnd that's point where the SC is irrelevant. You can't paperwork your way out of civil war when the people want one.
- dudinax 2y agoNo it doesn't. There's nothing in the constitution that grants immunity to a president and no reason why Donald Trump had to commit the crimes he's charged with.
- ac29 2y agoIf every past, present, and future legal scenario was explicitly and unambiguously addressed by the constitution, we wouldnt need the Supreme Court. In reality it is an imperfect document that can never possibly be complete.
- dudinax 2y agoYou're suggesting presidential immunity is a new idea, and criminal charges against ex-presidents are a new threat to the executive branch, both of which were wrong. 230 years ago people had already through through this. Immunity isn't in the constitution because they didn't want it in there. The president already has all the constitutional protection he needs from prosecution: a prosecutor can't remove him from office.