Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forumTo Make Sure 'No President Is Above the Law,' Warren Calls for New Measure Enabling DOJ to Indict
To Make Sure 'No President Is Above the Law,' Warren Calls for New Measure Enabling DOJ to Indict a President
From the article:
In a Medium post titled "No President Is Above the Law," the Massachusetts Democrat called on lawmakers to pass legislation that would allow for the indictment of a sitting presidenta measure that would have allowed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to act on his decision not to exonerate President Donald Trump.
"Donald Trump believes that he can violate the law, and he believes that the role of the Department of Justice is to help him get away with it," Warren wrote. "That's not how our country is supposed to work."
To read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/31/make-sure-no-president-above-law-warren-calls-new-measure-enabling-doj-indict?cd-
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,281 posts)Assuming Turtle Boy even allows the Senate to debate the bill, would the Senate pass it? And if they did, would the president sign it? And if he did, would this Supreme Court uphold its constitutionality?
I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer but although I totally agree with it in principle it won't go anywhere. If it's intended as a political gesture it's a good one (Do you Republicans think the president should be above the law? Do you? No?), but it won't become the law, at least not now.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And your reasoning is correct. But as a statement of policy, and philosophy, it makes sense to say it and allow the GOP to oppose it.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)The DOJ's position has (for decades) been that the constitution sets such a restriction on them.
Warren could ask for an action getting the courts to weigh in on that determination... or she could begin the process to amend the Constitution to make that clear...
... what she can't do is pass legislation to fix the problem.
Of course... she knows that AND she knows that such legislation would never pass (let alone be signed by this president)... so this is just an opportunity for her to stand up and say that no president is above the law.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I'd just prefer that we make political statements that are consistent with the constitution.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)But not in the sense that you mean it.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the law.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)But there are plenty here who believe that if the senate wont remove in the current scenario... then thats now broken.
Of course - many freepers felt the same way with Clinton.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)One cannot simply ask a court hey, waddya think of this?
In the hypothetical where such a law is passed (by a veto proof majority of course) however, the president could challenge an indictment brought under it, and the DOJ memo is essentially the brief for his side.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)By "action" I meant a lawsuit. It would have to be pretty creative. Maybe claim (As many here - I think incorrectly) that Mueller's report represents a claim that the president would have been indicted but for that opinion. The failure to indict in that scenario represents an abuse of discretion.
In the hypothetical where such a law is passed (by a veto proof majority of course) however, the president could challenge an indictment brought under it,
Not sure that can happen. The DOJ wouldn't bring an indictment if their official position is that such is unconstitutional. Congress can't pass a law saying that DOJ must indict (because prosecutorial discretion even if something is outside of the law)
And... of course... enough support to sustain a veto override would also be enough to just impeach/remove in the first place.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
C_U_L8R
(44,897 posts)Given that theres a republican roadblock in the senate squashing anything that looks like real justice, is there anything state legislatures can do?
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This is a Federal matter. But she is making a statement about what should be policy.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)The opinion is only binding on the DOJ (who, of course, handles all federal indictments).
State prosecutors are not bound by that opinion at all.
There are of course other constraints (it would start quite the circus)... but the DOJ's opinion isn't one of them.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...is something one might meditate on whether it is a good idea as a general proposition.
Can you think of other presidents, historically, whom a state may have wanted to indict?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio would have arrested him for having an allegedly false birth certificate.
Yeah, that would have been productive.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Turin_C3PO
(13,650 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I just can't think of a constitutional rationale for saying it isn't possible.
Arpaio is a good example... but I'm not sure that the NYAG is all that far from taking a swing at it either.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Of the three branches of the federal government, two are institutions, but the full authority of the other one is vested in a person.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)However - keep in mind the relevant context. King George had more than just the executive authority... and under the Articles of Confederation, there was no separation of powers (at the federal level).
If executive power hadn't grown so much (inappropriate delegations of power from Congress, etc.) - it wouldn't be such a big deal that one person held it all.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided