4 ms·

I don't believe that would work. You can't revoke someone's immunity and then prosecute them for crimes committed while they had immunity. Seems like it would v

I don't believe that would work. You can't revoke someone's immunity and then prosecute them for crimes committed while they had immunity. Seems like it would violate the concept of rule of law...

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
I think giving immunity for breaking the law, in advance, also strains the concept of rule of law...
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I agree - and in any case it seems I misinterpreted what kind of immunity the President actually has.
dllthomas 13y ago
Placing the president above the law itself violates the concept of rule of law. I don't know of anything that explicitly grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution. The ability to pardon grants an implicit immunity absent impeachment, but pardon is forbidden in cases of impeachment. This, of course, could be my ignorance. Certainly the only appearance of "immun" in the Constitution is in "immunities" in an unrelated context.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  I don't think the president has blanket immunity. Rather, he has immunity for things he does as the president. This type of immunity is not uncommon. For example, judges have immunity for everything they do while acting as a judge.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Careful that we do not conflate civil immunity and criminal immunity. I am not confident that the latter is absent, and IANAL, but everything I find on judicial immunity is about the former.
dragonwriter 13y ago
I don't think its clear that the President has immunity for offenses committed while in office (I think the general consensus is that he does not, though ISTR seeing contrary arguments), but it is pretty clear that the President -- as the holder of executive authority -- can't be prosecuted for federal crimes by the US government while he is in office (because the President holds the executive power, thus a criminal action against the President would be the President acting against himself.) This is not so much an issue of immunity as of a requirement for the prosecution and defense to not be different parties. > Seems like it would violate the concept of rule of law... I would argue that the President being immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office would be a bigger violation of the concept of rule of law than the President being subject to prosecution for such violations but only after leaving office.

I don't believe that would work. You can't revoke someone's immunity and then prosecute them for crimes committed while they had immunity. Seems like it would violate the concept of rule of law...

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

I think giving immunity for breaking the law, in advance, also strains the concept of rule of law...

TallGuyShort 13y ago
I agree - and in any case it seems I misinterpreted what kind of immunity the President actually has.

dllthomas 13y ago

Placing the president above the law itself violates the concept of rule of law. I don't know of anything that explicitly grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution. The ability to pardon grants an implicit immunity absent impeachment, but pardon is forbidden in cases of impeachment. This, of course, could be my ignorance. Certainly the only appearance of "immun" in the Constitution is in "immunities" in an unrelated context.

gizmo686 13y ago
I don't think the president has blanket immunity. Rather, he has immunity for things he does as the president. This type of immunity is not uncommon. For example, judges have immunity for everything they do while acting as a judge.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Careful that we do not conflate civil immunity and criminal immunity. I am not confident that the latter is absent, and IANAL, but everything I find on judicial immunity is about the former.

dragonwriter 13y ago

I don't think its clear that the President has immunity for offenses committed while in office (I think the general consensus is that he does not, though ISTR seeing contrary arguments), but it is pretty clear that the President -- as the holder of executive authority -- can't be prosecuted for federal crimes by the US government while he is in office (because the President holds the executive power, thus a criminal action against the President would be the President acting against himself.) This is not so much an issue of immunity as of a requirement for the prosecution and defense to not be different parties. > Seems like it would violate the concept of rule of law... I would argue that the President being immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office would be a bigger violation of the concept of rule of law than the President being subject to prosecution for such violations but only after leaving office.