Indicting a Sitting PresidentSubmitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2005-10-19 16:14. Activism
By Richard M. Mathews
Precedent exists to indict a Vice President.
Vice President Aaron Burr was subject to indictments in two states while still in office. Burr stayed out of those two states to avoid prosecution.
In the case of Spiro Agnew, Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. While still Vice President, Agnew plea bargained a deal in which he plead "no contest" to tax evasion. He resigned the same day he entered his plea.
For a President, there is no clear precedent one way or another. The closest is the case of Nixon. The Grand Jury reportedly wanted to indict Nixon. Prosecutor Jaworski convinced them to avoid the issue of whether the President may be indicted by naming him as an unindicted coconspirator. This was sufficient to get a subpoena for Nixon's records including the tapes. Nixon argued that the subpoena was invalid because he was not subject to indictment.
The Supreme Court sidestepped the indictment issue by ruling that they did not need to answer that question in order to reach their conclusion that the subpoena was valid. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 687 n. 2 (1974).
There is not a single word in the Constitution that supports a claim that the President cannot be indicted. On the contrary, the Constitution merely says this about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
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.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Note that in the above sections the Constitution treats impeachment of the President exactly the same as impeachment of any other Officer. The only place where the Constitution treats the President differently with respect to impeachment is in that the Chief Justice sits as the presiding officer in the Senate trial of a President:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 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.
Since the Constitution treats the President identically to all other Officers .... More at the link:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3820 When I first posted this article, October 20, 2005 (
http://tinyurl.com/c8rgu), it was in the context of Bush's waging an illegal war and deceiving the Nation. Some ambiguity may still exists regarding those crimes.
However, today, Bush admitted committing crimes including violations of the Constitution. No ambiguity exists.
Bush should be indicted, but, at a more fundamental level, those whom he has harmed should bring charges against him and, given the law, he should be issued an arrest warrant, informed of his rights, and booked. Let a jury of his peers decide his fate, thereafter. It's (barely) still the American way.
Peace.