4 ms·

I recall when this ruling was made, there was a BBC opinion piece that took an outraged position on this and contrasted it with the position of the prime minist

• vharuck 9mo ago
  >There is a mechanism for prosecuting presidents, impeachment and a trial in the Senate That is not a substitute for prosecution, it is a political process for removing a president. The Constitution's authors likely meant it to be used when a president ignored their duty, violated the Constitution, or lost public support before the end of their term. These are not federal crimes, so they don't go through the federal courts. The impeachment and removal process does imitate indictment and trial, but that's because there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. The SCOTUS ruling went far beyond historical practice. Historically, officials weren't prosecuted for official acts unless it was shown the act was part of another crime. So if the President delayed a FEMA response because of budget worries or incorrect forecasts, nobody would be prosecuted or open to lawsuits from citizens who suffered. But now, no official investigator can interview an appointed official to find out if the act was done as part of a crime. Worse, if the act was a presidential power enumerated in the Constitution, there is almost no way to investigate its use in an obvious crime. If the President only pardons people after they pay him $20,000 dollars, the President is immune from investigation. A hypothetical raised in the dissent is still an open question: what could be done if Donald Trump orders a military strike team to kill the next Democratic presidential nominee? Do you expect this Congress to actually impeach him? After he lied to, riled up, directed, and have plenty of time to a mob who invaded Congress and built a gallows to hang the Vice President? And Congress didn't prevent him from ever holding office again? I am not swayed by any argument along the lines of "But the President will be too worried about vindictive prosecution to make the right choices." If we really need to prevent that, I'd rather have every president thrown in prison for life after their term. No need to worry about prosecution, because you already know what awaits you. The office is more important than any individual holding it.
  • sethev 9mo ago
    > The SCOTUS ruling went far beyond historical practice. The ruling was specific to the President, not other officials. Donald Trump is the only president in US history who has been formally charged with committing a crime while in office, so I don't see how the ruling went far beyond historical practice. I do think it went far beyond what some people had assumed would be the case if it were ever tested. The fact that Nixon resigned rather than triggering a test of this and then was pardoned by Ford (also avoiding a test of immunity) are indicators that historical practice was closer to immunity than not (i.e. past presidents did whatever was in their power to avoid having immunity scrutinized).
• rjsw 9mo ago
  Britain (technically England) has prosecuted a monarch [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
  • cherry_tree 9mo ago
    >Charles was tried, convicted, and executed for high treason in January 1649. The monarchy was abolished and the Commonwealth of England was established as a republic. The monarchy was restored in 1660, with Charles's son Charles II as king. lol and immediately restored the monarchy with his son