3 ms·
It was not out of thin air. There's a reason why the impeachment process is in the Constitution -- and why it's perfectly normal for countries to have Parliame
by peterfirefly 1y ago
It was not out of thin air. There's a reason why the impeachment process is in the Constitution -- and why it's perfectly normal for countries to have Parliamental Immunity and processes quite similar to the US impeachment for government ministers.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoWe have legislative immunity called the speech and debate clause. It doesn't shield lawmakers from other crimes, nor should it, and it certainly doesn't imply some sort of expansive executive immunity. The founders were rebelling agaisnt an untouchable executive, remember?
- voidfunc 1y agoIf the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such rather than leaving it to interpretation.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such They did; by writing in explicit immunities for some constitutional officers for certain activities, they implicitly rejected other immunities for those and other constitutional officers, by the legal principle “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.
- wqaatwt 1y agoThat the opposite of how laws work..
- voidfunc 1y agoOpposite of common law, but exactly how the Constitution works.
- wqaatwt 1y agoWell if the constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right it can’t just appear out of nowhere? At this point it’s about the “spirit” of the constitution not what is in the document itself since there is no mention of presidential immunity. On the other hand it does grant the members of congress immunity under certain circumstances so it’s unlikely they just forgot about the president when writing it.