Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How should the constitution be fixed? [View all]lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)62. clarity on whether a sitting president can be indicted
It already is clear, and the argument below states why that is.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president
Credit: Matthew Kahn
In a recent opinion piece, I argued that the text and structure of the Constitution, a serious commitment to the rule of law, and plain good sense combine to preclude a rigid policy of delaying any indictment of a president for crimes committed in winning the presidency. When a scholar I admire as much as Philip Bobbitt strongly disagrees and argues otherwise in this publication, I need to rethink my position and respondeither confessing error or explaining why I continue to hold to the views I originally expressed
....he says my explanation depends on an artful reading of Article I, Section 3, which provides that the Party convicted [by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, conviction and punishment as provided by law. Bobbitt argues that the natural import of those words is that the Party convicted has to be a person who has in fact [already] been convicted, i.e., who has gone through an impeachment process prior to being subject to indictment.
I have no quarrel with that argument, although Professor Bobbitt assumes I do. I read the language of Article I, Section 3 as leaving subject to indictment and trial an official who has been impeached, convicted and removed for an impeachable offense that happens also to be a crime. Without that language, it might have been argued that the ban on double jeopardy would preclude such post-removal proceedings that seek to punish the removed official criminally for the very same conduct that led to the officials conviction and removal by the Senate. But that language says nothing at all about the amenability to indictment and trial of an official who hasnt yet been removed through impeachment. It is the Constitutions unspoken but clear commitment to the rule of law, and to the proposition that even the president is not above the law, that establishes the basic point that being president doesnt mean being immune to indictment.
All that Article I, Section 3 adds with respect to an official who has been removed through impeachment and conviction is that such an official cannot invoke the Senate conviction as a bar to subsequent criminal prosecution. That such an official shall nevertheless be liable to the criminal process says only that he shall remain liable to that processjust as he would have been prior to removal. In other words, the impeachment process doesnt serve as a crime-laundering device.
Ironically, it is Professor Bobbitt who has read Article I, Section 3 in a manner unsupported by the natural import of its words. He has read the statement that someone removed through the impeachment process shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law as though the Constitution states that anyone removed from office for committing an impeachable offense shall, upon being convicted by the Senate, for the first time become liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. His reading would suggest that amenability to the federal criminal process springs from the ether once an officer has been put through the impeachment wringer and been found wanting.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think it's useful for checks and balances to have one body with longer terms than the other
meadowlander
Sep 2019
#67
That's why we have a house of representatives...for proportional representation. n/t
cynatnite
Sep 2019
#11
We do not have true proportional representation in the House either, we have a first-past-the-post
Celerity
Sep 2019
#22
The only solution to gerrymandering is to start realizing how important your vote ...
marble falls
Sep 2019
#8