Comment

Comment on Why wasn't former President Bush of the USA, charged with any crimes, when we marched into Afghanistan and Iraq by his orders, under pretenses?

<- View Parent

kbotc@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

That’s not true. Even the specific rules laid out in the constitution have limits. You have the right to freedom of speech, and yet it is silent about the type of speech protected. We did not write down that the president is allowed to lie about winning the election in the constitution, but we did write down the president must carry out the duties of the office faithfully, and we gave Congress the power to create laws, which all citizens are bound. The president is a citizen, not a king, and I have to say this again as it was very important to the authors of the constitution: The president is not a king. He doesn’t have the divine right. Trump’s just another citizen who was temporarily given the power of the executive. You could charge him with a crime and put his ass in prison while he was a president without impeaching him. Executive privilege is court tested, but it only applies to confidentiality, and going in front of the public and lying is, by definition, not confidential.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Archpawn@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

That’s not true.

Source? This says it also mentions piracy and counterfeiting, but it’s just listing it as one of the enumerated powers.

and we gave Congress the power to create laws, which all citizens are bound.

Exactly. Congress has to make things a crime. The fact that the Constitution says that the president has to faithfully carry out their duties doesn’t make not doing that a crime.

If you’re saying that Congress did pass such a law, can you tell me which one?

source
- idiomaddict@feddit.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I think you folks are talking past each other. The constitution requires faithful fulfillment of the duties of office, so because of that requirement, presidents swear oaths of duty. Lying under oath is a crime (not delineated in the constitution) and a violation of the faithful fulfillment of duties, which means that he is violating the terms of presidency set out in the constitution (also not a crime, but impeachable).
  
  source
  - Archpawn@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    But you’d have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended not to uphold the oath of office when he made it.
    
    source
    idiomaddict@feddit.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not to impeach him, just to successfully charge him with purgery.
    
    source