|
Me: "You do realize that if Hatch were correct, Bush could break any law, right? ANY LAW. He could murder someone, rob a bank, rape someone, whatever he wants, so long as he verbally claimed it was for national security purposes, and according to Hatch, you couldn't even investigate the incident?"
Neocon: "Is it so strange ? Cannot diplomats do much the same thing ?"
Me: "You think that the President can murder, rape, and steal with no consequences?"
Neocon: "I did not say 'with no consequences'. The prez is ALWAYS subject to impeachment if his actions are thought to be illegal. There's your consequence."
========================================================
So, according to Neocons, Presidents are free to break any law they want to, and the only recourse is to Impeach if we feel its illegal, and then, I assume, prosecute criminally after Impeachment.
What this means, is that if Congress is unwilling to Impeach a President for breaking the law, that President can break the law without liability, without being held criminally responsible.
I am not sure that he is completely wrong according to the technical way in which the Presidency and Impeachment works. I believe a sitting President does enjoy immunity from all prosecution. But, if a crime is committed, Impeachment is the constitutionally dictated remedy, followed by criminal charges once Impeached.
However, what he is overlooking is the simple common sense result of that interpretation, which is a President that breaks laws without consequence. Obviously, we don't want that.
The NSA Spying fight is not a fight over whats legal and whats not legal. Its a fight over the powers we wish the Executive Branch to have. No matter if Bush's program is legal or not (and its not), it has to be deemed an overstep of his bounds, because the only check on his power, according to Neocons, is Impeachment. If he doesn't fear Impeachment, he has no limitations to his power.
This is the arguement we need to make to people so that REALLY understand the NSA Spying issue.
|