Comment on Congress Moving Forward On Unconstitutional Take It Down Act

• vurr@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I think presidents having immunity is essential to have a functioning democracy. Otherwise the party currently in power could arrest the previous president for something they allegedly did while in power and would set a bad precedent. I think it is best for the presidents to be immune unless impeached by both the house and senate for something particularly heinous. And yes, Trump should probably have been impeached already after the insurrection, but that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t just willy-nilly arrest some ex president. There is separation of power for a good reason: to not give too much power to any branch of government.

  source

  • Zexks@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Hard fucking NO. If the don’t break the laws they don’t have to worry about being perused by the other parties. People fucking died for this.

    source
  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Kinks: the taste of boot leather

    source
  • Khanzarate@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No.

    Of course even the president has a right to due process, but no. If the president commits treason, he doesn’t get to be immune to that. A trial is warranted and an arrest if found guilty is correct.

    Yes, corruption could hypothetically rig such a trial. But a president immune from the consequences of his actions means there only needs to be one person corrupted to ruin a whole branch of government, instead of the hundreds it would take Congress to rig a trial.

    source

    • vurr@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Thanks for the constructive feedback. If American system would have been functional enough to actually impeach and indict him then we wouldn’t have this conversation right now as his immunity would have been stripped. That’s impeachments whole point – to hold people in power, who are otherwise immune from prosecution accountable (at least that’s how I understand it), but I totally get where you’re coming from. It worked with Nixon as he probably would have been impeached had he not stepped down. I mostly agree with the points you raise nevertheless.

      source
    • shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The trial is called impeachment proceedings. We already have this covered.

      source

      • Khanzarate@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Here’s the text.

        “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than 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.”

        Impeachment is important and it should’ve happened, but the senate literally can’t do anything except remove him from office, and the impeachment text specifically allows for regular law to also apply to whoever got impeached.

        So no, we do not have this covered by impeachment, and no former president is immune from regular legal proceedings.

        Current presidents are, though, through supreme court precedent and the self-pardon. Former presidents should not automatically get this benefit though.

        source