Do you support amendment?

[dbjork6317]

The President has proposed an amendment to the constitution to limit/eliminate Presidential immunity. There’s no official language yet, but per the White House it would “state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.”

Personally, I’d support this (pending the official language) and struggle to understand why Americans wouldn’t want the President to be able to be held legally accountable. So, do you support it? And if not, why not? And let’s see if we can make our arguments here without specifically referencing Biden/Trump/Harris/2024 election. This is bigger than that and would obviously have an impact on the rule of law long after 2024.

Biden also proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, and I’ve long been on record for supporting term limits across the board, for judges and congress.

 

[scotchtiger]

I think if it is for actions outside of fulfilling his presidential duties, then yes. You should not be immune for actions completely unrelated to the presidency when you are no longer president.

 

[okclem]

The president should be no more immune to the law than anyone else.

 

[dbjork6317]

I think if it is for actions outside of fulfilling his presidential duties, then yes. You should not be immune for actions completely unrelated to the presidency when you are no longer president.

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

 

[fatpiggy]

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

The scotus got it right, no need to adjust.

 

[fatpiggy]

The president should be no more immune to the law than anyone else.

That is a ridiculous statement. Think about it for .02 seconds

 

[scotchtiger]

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

I'm not privy to the non-public ongoings of US presidents, so I'm not really sure. But I imagine in the course of 4 years they are ordering military strikes, having bad guys assassinated, authorizing bribes, etc etc. I'm sure there are some trade-related, business-related, anti-trust type issues that could come up as well. It's presumed these things are done in the nations best interest of course, but my confidence in the elected federal government has never been lower.

I understand why the president needs to be immune from certain official acts, but as mentioned, I don't know why that would extend to civilian life. Perhaps if he's acting for the US in the official capacity as a former president (ie brokering a peace deal)? Not sure.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

That is a ridiculous statement. Think about it for .02 seconds

Makes sense to me in the 2 seconds I read it.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

The scotus got it right, no need to adjust.

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

 

[kidmike41]

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

The Supreme Court didn't say that he had immunity on those items. Those were not official acts. If a lower court wants to drop charges that is a separate matter.

 

[PawsFan_]

So a lame duck president wants to propose a Constitutional Amendment that will have to pass Congress and be ratified by 75% of the states: all before his term ends.

The man is senile.

 

[okclem]

That is a ridiculous statement. Think about it for .02 seconds

I don't have to. I've already thought about it longer than that.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

The Supreme Court didn't say that he had immunity on those items. Those were not official acts. If a lower court wants to drop charges that is a separate matter.

That hasn't stopped Trump for asking that this case be thrown out because of the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity though. It gives him wiggle room to get out of the conviction. Up to the judge whether this SCOTUS ruling applies.

 

[moradatiger70]

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

You better go convict 80% of Real Estate developers then. I worked for some in the past, and what is considered illegal, may be by the letter of the law and I am not going to argue that, but it's done on the daily, and NO one on the left can get past that.
All they see is convict, convict!

Sorry @dbjork6317. I realized I did not answer. I actually agree (pending the official language). But what I said above still applies.
Also, not in agreement with "term limits", but maybe "ending term". Meaning, your term ends after so many years and then you have to either be reappointed for another term or replaced.

 

[fatpiggy]

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

You immediately go to Trump instead of thinking about the implications for ALL presidents. Think a little bit farther than your hatred. Your TDS is showing.

 

[dbjork6317]

So a lame duck president wants to propose a Constitutional Amendment that will have to pass Congress and be ratified by 75% of the states: all before his term ends.

The man is senile.

Why would all of that have to happen before his term ends?

 

[fatpiggy]

Yeah, 75% of the states will definitely ratify that. Anyone looked at an electoral map lately?

 

[kidmike41]

That hasn't stopped Trump for asking that this case be thrown out because of the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity though. It gives him wiggle room to get out of the conviction. Up to the judge whether this SCOTUS ruling applies.

Right, so Trump can ask all he wants. No need for a constitutional amendment.