Our S.C. ignored the proper venue to try President for crimes (presidential immunity case)

[lottamoxie]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

The question before the court is the question of immunity as it relates to his two federal indictments. Does a president have complete immunity.

Congress cannot try a president who left office.

Mitch McConnell said that crime(s) committed by a president while in office should be charged and prosecuted by (the DOJ) after that president is out of office. Yesterday, McConnell said presidents should not be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

SCOTUS, as well as everyone else, knows a president should not have "complete immunity." They'll play dumb, they'll twist reasoning, but it will be dangerous to rule a president is always above the law. The majority right wing might rule that way regardless, or some variation of it, to help out the ex-P. Would they do that for any other president or ex-P? Questionable.

[James Austen]

Only dictators enjoy immunity. In a democracy no one is above the law not even present or past Presidents

[CALGUY]

I believe the supreme court will have a ruling soon on the immunity case before it.
They will not give Trump complete immunity, but will allow him immunity from the case in Georgia, because he was acting under his authority as President at the time he asked the secretary of state in Georgia to "find 11,000 votes".
As a candidate for president, and the president, he had a duty to question the results of the election in Georgia.

The size, and population of the state, would obviously bring into question the validity of an election so close, that only 11,000 votes separated the winner from the looser.
Did any one demand a recall?
I don't remember.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Exactly. Senate Democrats in their own words (votes).

From all the evidence and facts thus established, including the vote by a democrat-controlled Senate, it appears our Senate can be seated and used as a constitutionally authorized venue to try a former president for alleged criminal activity while in office, which are asserted in Articles of Impeachment presented by the House.

Now, the question to be explored seems to be, by the terms of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, is the Senate the constitutionally authorized and exclusive venue, to try a current or former president for crimes committed while in office?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no conclusive and authoritative finding resolving this question. What we do know is, our Founders, by the terms of our Constitution, did authorize the House to accuse, and our Senate to try and convict a President for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while holding his/her office of public trust. But is the Senate an exclusive venue for this type of proceeding, or should it be?

It really is a complex issue to resolve with any certainty.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

Since there is no indication by the terms of our Constitution that our Senate is not vested with an exclusive power to try the President (for acts he/she may commit while President), and is silent if the Senate is an exclusive venue for that subject matter or that the assigned duty under question may be exercised by a different body such as our regular courts, I would say a constitutional amendment would be necessary to alter or expand what is already placed in the hands of our Senate. To not do so is to ignore the bedrock of our constitutionally limited system of government which requires consent of the governed, and by their own reason and choice.

Does the above make sense?
.
.

[natalie469]

No one is above the law including presidents

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by natalie469

No one is above the law including presidents

I agree. What is the point of your post with respect to the subject.


Our federal Constitution requires the Concurrence of two thirds of the Senate to convict an impeached official. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 6.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

And U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 cl. 7 commands.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Keep in mind Trump was not convicted by the Senate which is granted a "sole Power to try"..., So how can he [former President Trump], " . . . be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law..." without being convicted by the Senate for crimes alleged to have been committed while in office?

.

[Riley.]

Originally Posted by johnwk1

.
Yesterday, 4/25/2024, our Supreme Court, when hearing oral arguments concerning Trump and presidential immunity, they totally dropped the ball in ferreting out the constitutionally authorized venue to try a President for an alleged crime.


The truth is, our Constitution provides for the House to allege a crime, and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred. If the Senate finds a crime has been committed, then the president can be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.


Generally speaking, in the case of a president committing a crime, the House and Senate act in a manner similar to that of a Grand Jury.


There is no other venue, other than Congress, mentioned in the Constitution to deal with a President who violates the law, and since the Constitution does provide that venue, it appears that is the proper venue to deal with a president who acts criminally while in office.


Why was the impeachment process added to our Constitution? One reliable source answering that question is Madison:


"Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings." See: Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense


The bottom line is, the issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was included in our Constitution under the impeachment process, and our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.


.

Originally Posted by Chuckity

Untrue. That is not the question before SCOTUS

Then what exactly IS the question before the Supremes?
Most of us thought (I think) that it was whether or not a president has immunity for actions taken while in office. The court is parsing (correctly? I think so) whether any such act is in the private interest of the president (as a person - and may be against the law - in which case impeachment is the proper remedy) or the action was in the public interest of the country (for which he may be under immunity).

PS and I'm not sure they believe their question is to determine which is which....

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by johnwk1

.
Yesterday, 4/25/2024, our Supreme Court, when hearing oral arguments concerning Trump and presidential immunity, they totally dropped the ball in ferreting out the constitutionally authorized venue to try a President for an alleged crime.


The truth is, our Constitution provides for the House to allege a crime, and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred. If the Senate finds a crime has been committed, then the president can be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.


Generally speaking, in the case of a president committing a crime, the House and Senate act in a manner similar to that of a Grand Jury.


There is no other venue, other than Congress, mentioned in the Constitution to deal with a President who violates the law, and since the Constitution does provide that venue, it appears that is the proper venue to deal with a president who acts criminally while in office.


Why was the impeachment process added to our Constitution? One reliable source answering that question is Madison:


"Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings." See: Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense


The bottom line is, the issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was included in our Constitution under the impeachment process, and our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.


.

Hmmm, whom to trust on the legalities here....the SCOTUS or johnwk1, sorry bud going to go with the SCOTUS on this one.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Hmmm, whom to trust on the legalities here....the SCOTUS or johnwk1, sorry bud going to go with the SCOTUS on this one.

To answer your question, we ought to go with the text of our written Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text.

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

.

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by johnwk1

From all the evidence and facts thus established, including the vote by a democrat-controlled Senate, it appears our Senate can be seated and used as a constitutionally authorized venue to try a former president for alleged criminal activity while in office, which are asserted in Articles of Impeachment presented by the House.

Now, the question to be explored seems to be, by the terms of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, is the Senate the constitutionally authorized and exclusive venue, to try a current or former president for crimes committed while in office?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no conclusive and authoritative finding resolving this question. What we do know is, our Founders, by the terms of our Constitution, did authorize the House to accuse, and our Senate to try and convict a President for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while holding his/her office of public trust. But is the Senate an exclusive venue for this type of proceeding, or should it be?

It really is a complex issue to resolve with any certainty.

Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.

Since there is no indication by the terms of our Constitution that our Senate is not vested with an exclusive power to try the President (for acts he/she may commit while President), and is silent if the Senate is an exclusive venue for that subject matter or that the assigned duty under question may be exercised by a different body such as our regular courts, I would say a constitutional amendment would be necessary to alter or expand what is already placed in the hands of our Senate. To not do so is to ignore the bedrock of our constitutionally limited system of government which requires consent of the governed, and by their own reason and choice.

Does the above make sense?
.
.

There is absolutely no way the Founders intended any political body made up of elected representatives, to adjudicate criminal or civil trials. Positively no way.

Even the Attorney General had no prosecutorial powers as I understand it, since the position was created in 1789 until the creation of the DOJ. Advisory only.

It was not until 1870 with Congress creating the Department of Justice, that the Federal government was allowed prosecutorial powers, and at that, trials were still by jury or before a judge, not a political body. The first Federal prison was not even yet established before 1891.

No, Congressional politicians should not have the power to adjudicate criminals trials, and in any event they don't. I have no clue where you think you found that power granted the Congress in the US Constitution. The impeachment process is for removing a sitting president from office only, it is not for trying him for crimes.