3 ms·
I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments. It’s a strict constructio
by awb 2y ago
I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments.
It’s a strict constructionist interpretation, where the judiciary shouldn’t fix problems that the people, congress and States have the power to fix.
In the example of the President (Commander in Chief) directing the military to thwart political enemies, I think a strict constructionist might say, the people freely elected that President, 2/3 of States failed to pass an amendment curtailing the President’s unilateral command of the military and the Congress failed to impeach and convict the President, so the judiciary is hardly to blame when the people, congress and States all could have intervened if there was a concern.
There are obviously counter arguments to this strict constructionist view, which the minority documented. The counter-argument is basically, yes there are those other options, but we have to use a liberal interpretation in this moment instead of a strict interpretation in order to prevent some potential disastrous consequences. And if the people, states and congress don’t like our liberal interpretation, then they can overrule us using the same methods of voting, laws, constitutional amendments, etc. that the strict constructionists advocate.
- mrkeen 2y ago> I think it’s consistent with the philosophy that States should curtail the powers of the President through constitutional amendments. Who's going to hold him to that? https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-ducks-opportunity-trump-emoluments-cases https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supr...
- BatmansMom 2y agoI thought the strict constructionist arguments fell apart when the dissent quoted the Constitution which says even if a president is impeached, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7 I don't see how any interpretation of this text could imply that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. It clearly says a president is not immune from criminal penalties, how could they write this while also considering the president immune for offical acts?
- awb 2y agoHere’s the whole clause: > Judgment in Cases of Impeachment 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. So I think the intended process is that congress must impeach and convict first, and then after that they are subject to criminal prosecution. So I’m guessing that the Federal government or US State can’t unilaterally prosecute the President for an official act if they haven’t been impeached.