3 ms·

It's pretty clear that constitution implies some sort of immunity, and that it is necessary to protect successive presidents from throwing each other in prison.

It's pretty clear that constitution implies some sort of immunity, and that it is necessary to protect successive presidents from throwing each other in prison. The problem is not really with presidential immunity - it's that the check on presidential powers was supposed to be Congress. But Congress is clearly powerless and has slowly been gutted of its power. America so far has been incredibly lucky - we have the oldest constitution in the world. Yet nearly every government that has tried to copy it has failed. And it's fairly telling that when we successfully rebuilt countries after WWII, we largely pulled from other government models and established parliamentary systems.

nullocator 10mo ago
It's not cleat to me that the constitution implies immunity for the president? It shouldn't imply or provide immunity for anyone. The president is a citizen. If the whole bill of goods all citizens are sold is "you have no fear of criminal prosecution if you've committed no crimes" and that supposed to be good enough for every day joes, it should be good enough for temporary and previous state actors.
- legitster 10mo ago
  Well - we do have similar immunity extensions for common citizens if their role warrants - if a soldier or police officer kill someone in the line of duty, they don't necessarily get charged with a crime. > “The President… is amenable to [the law] in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.” - James Wilson - one of the drafters and early Supreme Court justice I'm not arguing that the constitution gives the president broad immunity for all personal crimes. But it was pretty understood at the time and in the text of the constitution that impeachment was to proceed all legal criminal charges.
atmavatar 10mo ago
> It's pretty clear that constitution implies some sort of immunity, and that it is necessary to protect successive presidents from throwing each other in prison. How so? Please elaborate. I would point out that there's explicit language in Article I, Section 6 about House and Senate members being immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. However, there is nothing in Article II regarding a grant of immunity to the President. I could see an argument that the President should probably be protected from arrest during his term, similar to Congressmen, but there's very clearly no mention of such protection in in the Constitution I can find. However, that's nothing compared to the broad protections the Roberts court handed him in Trump v. United States: protection from investigation, even after his term expires.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
  This passage just says that they can't arrested while they are actually in the house while it is in session. Reads to me, once they leave they can be arrested in the parking lot.
  - aw1621107 10mo ago
    > Reads to me, once they leave they can be arrested in the parking lot. Wouldn't "and in going to or returning from the same" cover that? Furthermore, you might be interested in the clause right after the one you mention: > and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
    - defrost 10mo ago
      > and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. That one reads more like "all questions about their activities must be asked in the House and no where else", which is politically more like an open, transparent, on the record clause (no off the record Q&A's over What'sApp and Telegraph). Elsewhere, in Commonwealth countries, they have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansard recording all debates and questions. Always fun transcoding the meaning of language over time.
      - aw1621107 10mo ago
        > That one reads more like "all questions about their activities must be asked in the House and no where else", Read literally, perhaps, but US courts have interpreted that clause more broadly to give general immunity to legislators for their legislative activities. For example, from Gravel v. US [0]: > Rather, [Gravel's] insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. > The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Or from Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund [1] (citations omitted; there are a lot of them!): > The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity." If they do, the petitioners "shall not be questioned in any other Place" about those activities, since the prohibitions of the Speech or Debate Clause are absolute[]. > Without exception, our cases have read the Speech or Debate Clause broadly to effectuate its purposes []. The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently. > "The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators." []. In our system "the clause serves the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders." []. > The Clause is a product of the English experience. []. Due to that heritage, our cases make it clear that the "central role" of the Clause is to "prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary []," []. That role is not the sole function of the Clause, however, and English history does not totally define the reach of the Clause. Rather, it "must be interpreted in light of the American experience, and in the context of the American constitutional scheme of government...." []. Thus, we have long held that, when it applies, the Clause provides protection against civil as well as criminal actions, and against actions brought by private individuals as well as those initiated by the Executive Branch. [0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/606/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/606/ [1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/491/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/491/
defrost 10mo ago
> America so far has been incredibly lucky - we have the oldest constitution in the world. Not even remotely. * the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922 - present) carried forward the Constitution of * the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1801 - 1922) which itself carried forward the Constitution of * the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1801), which carried forward the Constitution of * the Kingdom of England (and Wales) (1536 - 1707), which carried forward the Constitution of * the Kingdom of England* (927 - 1707) The phrase you likely wanted was "the oldest and shortest written constitution still in force." > Yet nearly every government that has tried to copy it has failed. Sure. It's flawed. That's why, for example, some countries just picked the servicable parts and went hybrid with (say) "Washminster" systems.
- jasonm23 9mo ago
  tl'dr later models generally improve on earlier ones. (although "you can't please all the people all the time" applies)
  - defrost 9mo ago
    Yes. They iterate over time. As has the US Constitution which from its very outset was a dynamic document put forward with the stern advice to attend to it as time passes lest a despot put it aside.
locopati 10mo ago
Congress is not powerless. They have ceded their powers over time. They have refused to stand up for their powers, especially under the Republicans, who could have voted to impeach but did not, who could still vote to impeach but will not. Why won't they? Because they are complicit. They have been working towards one-party domination for decades.

nullocator 10mo ago

It's not cleat to me that the constitution implies immunity for the president? It shouldn't imply or provide immunity for anyone. The president is a citizen. If the whole bill of goods all citizens are sold is "you have no fear of criminal prosecution if you've committed no crimes" and that supposed to be good enough for every day joes, it should be good enough for temporary and previous state actors.

legitster 10mo ago
Well - we do have similar immunity extensions for common citizens if their role warrants - if a soldier or police officer kill someone in the line of duty, they don't necessarily get charged with a crime. > “The President… is amenable to [the law] in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.” - James Wilson - one of the drafters and early Supreme Court justice I'm not arguing that the constitution gives the president broad immunity for all personal crimes. But it was pretty understood at the time and in the text of the constitution that impeachment was to proceed all legal criminal charges.

atmavatar 10mo ago

> It's pretty clear that constitution implies some sort of immunity, and that it is necessary to protect successive presidents from throwing each other in prison. How so? Please elaborate. I would point out that there's explicit language in Article I, Section 6 about House and Senate members being immune from prosecution for carrying out their duties: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. However, there is nothing in Article II regarding a grant of immunity to the President. I could see an argument that the President should probably be protected from arrest during his term, similar to Congressmen, but there's very clearly no mention of such protection in in the Constitution I can find. However, that's nothing compared to the broad protections the Roberts court handed him in Trump v. United States: protection from investigation, even after his term expires.

Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
This passage just says that they can't arrested while they are actually in the house while it is in session. Reads to me, once they leave they can be arrested in the parking lot.
- aw1621107 10mo ago
  > Reads to me, once they leave they can be arrested in the parking lot. Wouldn't "and in going to or returning from the same" cover that? Furthermore, you might be interested in the clause right after the one you mention: > and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
  - defrost 10mo ago
    > and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. That one reads more like "all questions about their activities must be asked in the House and no where else", which is politically more like an open, transparent, on the record clause (no off the record Q&A's over What'sApp and Telegraph). Elsewhere, in Commonwealth countries, they have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansard recording all debates and questions. Always fun transcoding the meaning of language over time.
    - aw1621107 10mo ago
      > That one reads more like "all questions about their activities must be asked in the House and no where else", Read literally, perhaps, but US courts have interpreted that clause more broadly to give general immunity to legislators for their legislative activities. For example, from Gravel v. US [0]: > Rather, [Gravel's] insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. > The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Or from Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund [1] (citations omitted; there are a lot of them!): > The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity." If they do, the petitioners "shall not be questioned in any other Place" about those activities, since the prohibitions of the Speech or Debate Clause are absolute[]. > Without exception, our cases have read the Speech or Debate Clause broadly to effectuate its purposes []. The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently. > "The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators." []. In our system "the clause serves the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders." []. > The Clause is a product of the English experience. []. Due to that heritage, our cases make it clear that the "central role" of the Clause is to "prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary []," []. That role is not the sole function of the Clause, however, and English history does not totally define the reach of the Clause. Rather, it "must be interpreted in light of the American experience, and in the context of the American constitutional scheme of government...." []. Thus, we have long held that, when it applies, the Clause provides protection against civil as well as criminal actions, and against actions brought by private individuals as well as those initiated by the Executive Branch. [0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/606/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/606/ [1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/491/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/491/

defrost 10mo ago

> America so far has been incredibly lucky - we have the oldest constitution in the world. Not even remotely. * the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922 - present) carried forward the Constitution of * the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1801 - 1922) which itself carried forward the Constitution of * the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1801), which carried forward the Constitution of * the Kingdom of England (and Wales) (1536 - 1707), which carried forward the Constitution of * the Kingdom of England* (927 - 1707) The phrase you likely wanted was "the oldest and shortest written constitution still in force." > Yet nearly every government that has tried to copy it has failed. Sure. It's flawed. That's why, for example, some countries just picked the servicable parts and went hybrid with (say) "Washminster" systems.

jasonm23 9mo ago
tl'dr later models generally improve on earlier ones. (although "you can't please all the people all the time" applies)
- defrost 9mo ago
  Yes. They iterate over time. As has the US Constitution which from its very outset was a dynamic document put forward with the stern advice to attend to it as time passes lest a despot put it aside.

locopati 10mo ago

Congress is not powerless. They have ceded their powers over time. They have refused to stand up for their powers, especially under the Republicans, who could have voted to impeach but did not, who could still vote to impeach but will not. Why won't they? Because they are complicit. They have been working towards one-party domination for decades.