Any constitutional scholars in the house?

[lwcon]

One more question from over at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy:

"Since Bush broke the law, why don't they just arrest him?" Suggested by a smart 15-year-old.

Is impeachment the only means of recourse for Bush's illegal wiretapping, or could, say, the FBI swear out a warrant for his arrest and lead him away in handcuffs like the Cops perp that he is?


And please pardon, if you will, a little blog-whoring, but we're tickled pink by today's kind words from Sadly, No!":

"It is not possible to continue living without visiting these sites right now."

• Elementropy
• Parrotline
• Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

[sutz12]

1. I believe he has immunity from standard law enforcement....

impeachment is the only real way.

[radio4progressives]

2. President has to be Tried in the Senate following investigation

that is conducted in the House.

[OnyxCollie]

3. So, if Dems win the house in '06

then can we impeach the POS?

[radio4progressives]

7. Technically Yes, If there was the political will to do it..

unfortunately, the Washington Dems are sending a different message...

they're saying "elections have consequences, if you don't like who is in office, then vote them out in elections".

{Nancy Pelosi, on the question of impeachment)

[OnyxCollie]

17. And to think I used to like Nancy.

Bah.

[unblock]

6. no, this has nothing to do with criminal justice

impeachment and trial is SOLELY about removal from office.
it has nothing to do with the president's criminal liability.

[radio4progressives]

8. a Trial can be held (per constitution) following impeachment

a Trial is held in the Senate following articles of Impeachment in the House. The Senate, can Try and Convict a sitting President for high crimes and misdeamnors.

[unblock]

10. yes, but congress can only remove or not remove. no prison time, etc.

[radio4progressives]

16. True, after the Senate Convicts, the matter must be purused in Court

Additional criminal charges can be brought against convicted officials, but these are pursued in court and are separate from the impeachment process.

[lwcon]

9. That's how it looks to me

Reading Article II of the http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html">Constitution, I don't see any basis for immunity from ordinary prosecution. Is there another law somewhere that grants such a privilege?

[radio4progressives]

18. The Immunity is on the Question of "Arrest".

A sitting president cannot simply be arrested from my understanding of the Constitution..

Congress can conduct investigations on charges invoked (or indicted by Grand Jury as with Clinton) which is then decided vis a vis a vote of the house whether or not to impeach..

if Yes, then a Trial is conducted in the Senate, who is acting as a judiciary - if found guilty of charges, then the matter is pursued in Court, and that where the case is prosecuted and convicted.

[radio4progressives]

4. Here's a good link for excellent researched info..

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

[lwcon]

11. Is there a particular ADS article you'd suggest re: this topic?

[radio4progressives]

14. here's a better link:

http://www.answers.com/impeachment&r=67

i posted excerpts in a post down thread..

[unblock]

5. this question has never been resolved

seeing as no one has ever arrested a sitting president, the supreme court has never had the opportunity to opine on it.

however, thanks to the clinton witch hunt, we DO have a precedent that a sitting president can be sued in civil court, at least for actions taken by the president BEFORE he became president.

constitutional scholars are in general agreement that FORMER presidents can be charged for criminal activities.


the main argument that says the president is while he's president is that if some municipality or state can simply put him in jail or prison, that would be a dramatic an unintended shift in political power, as it would effectively render the president incapable of performing his duties. coup by arrest.

personally, i see this only as an argument that the sentence itself should be deferred.

[radio4progressives]

12. Answers to Impeachment Questions

Excerpted:

(snip)

Impeachment is conducted in two stages. Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives (art. I, sec. 2). This stage satisfies the Framers' belief that impeachment should be a public inquiry into charges against an official, and it involves fact-finding at hearings. After accumulating all the evidence, the House votes on whether or not to impeach. A vote against impeachment ends the process. A vote to impeach formally advances the process to its second stage through what is called adoption of the articles of impeachment. Each article is a formal charge with conviction on any one article being sufficient for removal. The case is then sent to the Senate, which organizes the matter for trial (art. I, sec. 3).

During the trial, the Senate follows unique rules. There is no jury (art. III, sec. 2). Instead, the Senate is transformed into a quasi-judicial body that hears the case, and the impeached official can attend or be represented by counsel. The vice president presides over the trial of any official except the president, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial of the president. To convict, a two-thirds majority is needed. The punishments for conviction are removal from office and disqualification from holding office again. No presidential pardon is possible (art. II, sec. 2). Additional criminal charges can be brought against convicted officials, but these are pursued in court and are separate from the impeachment process.

(snip)

cont..

http://www.answers.com/impeachment&r=67

[Mz Pip]

13. Why not, indeed?

What would the charges be? Incompetence? A seriously bad thing, but not illegal. Lying? Again, a seriously bad thing, but not illegal. Lying under oath? OK, prove it.

Then if you can prove or think you have proof of lying under oath:


First you have to convene a grand jury. Fat chance that will happen.

Get a vote to Impeach. Fat chance that will happen with the GOP controlling every branch of the Government.

We have to take back the House before we can Impeach Bush. That's the reality.

So we need to make that happen.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[radio4progressives]

19. apparently this question has been dismissed by you a long time ago

or you would be up on the voluminous documents that prove High Crimes, Misdemeanors and Treason.

[lwcon]

21. Breaking the FISA law, for starters

He authorized warrantless wiretapping, which is clearly a violation of the FISA law.

One more to try on for size is the violation of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Plainly he started the war without legitimately determining that the actions were warranted. Available intelligence did not establish that Iraq was a threat, and at the time he decided to start the war, UN inspectors were getting unprecedented access to Iraq. He went to war on a whim or ulterior agenda, and the resolution did not provide for that. One might also add that diverting resources from the war Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin-Laden was criminally inconsistent with section (2) of this law.

No doubt with proper investigations would come proof he's committed many more crimes involving lying to Congress, corrupt practices, suppression of free speech (e.g., during campaign visits), etc., etc.

[Lefty48197]

15. Check the gun dungeon

they're all Constitutional scholars in there.

[radio4progressives]

20. where's that? Link?

[Lefty48197]

22. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118