They have been referenced by the Supreme Court.
Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:47pm (XFF:

When the "Fathers of the Constitution" write down the reasoning behind what was put in the Constitution, it's SIGNIFICANT!

When attempting to determining the intent of the Constitution, you're goddamn right that The Federalist Papers are significant.

They aren't just the rantings of some guy trying to pull the wool over New Yorkers' eyes.

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist Paper 69, "seeking to to explain the Executive Power in order to quell fears that the President
would function as an elected monarch, the primary concern of anti-federalists."

Now, if his intent was that the President could be indicted by anyone with a wild hair up their ass, as a check on his powers, don't
you think Hamilton would have SAID SO? But he didn't. He specified IMPEACHMENT as the remedy.

Alexander Hamilton was a New Yorker himself. And, in explaining the Constitution he wrote "The President of the United States
would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from
office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

That's the only reference to the President being liable to "the ordinary course of law" - AFTER being removed from office
through the impeachment process.

If you can find anything in the Constitution OR The Federalist Papers that says that the President is subject to indictment by
anyone that gets a wild hair up their ass, please quote the text.

You're allowed to have an opinion, as long as you can support it with more than "some experts say that...."

  • having ANY legal force of law ??? They were written by THREE of the founding fathers for the purpose of convincing the STATE OF NEW YORK to ratify the constitution. They are NOT the constitution...... more
    • They have been referenced by the Supreme Court. — SES, Wed Dec 12 1:47pm
      • You are silly. I'm going to repeat this simple thing for you over and over until you concede the President is not immune from being prosecuted for felonies. The end.
      • You Don't Get To Shift The Burden...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 2:11pm
        The president is a citizen under the law. As such, he/she is subject to the law, just like every other citizen. Unless you can prove otherwise. Hint: the law does not state anywhere that the... more
        • things that will appear in the final draft against tRUMP are already out there in charges levied against others. He surely knows that tRUMP & company will TRY to bury the report. I read somewhere,... more
        • When writing Number 69 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was, in part, trying to assure people that the office of "President" would have constraints and guards against abuse of power.... more
          • No Need For Inference...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 4:42pm
            The default state is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, nobody has immunity from the law. There is no need for inference. The president has no such immunity. Impeachment would allow for removal ... more
          • Says YOU. Whooptie do dah.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 4:14pm
            Actual constitutional experts have a variety of views on it because it's NOT so simple as you insist it is.
            • ...than "Experts have a position on that, so I don't"? Which "experts" are correct - those who think a President CAN be indicted, or those who do NOT think that a President can be indicted? I think... more
              • I didn't say any such thing.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 5:17pm
                My earlier remarks had NOTHING to do with MY personal opinion, but with disputing the "absoluteness" of yours that NO other interpretation was reasonable. You turned it into an argument over whether... more
                • that the Constitution doesn't say that a sitting President can be indicted? So even though the Constitution specifically includes a statement that a President can be indicted AFTER being... more
                  • Nope. Read the referenced post inside for details.Sia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 7:57pm
          ;article=700259;title=Civilized%20General%20Discussion Also, DO NOT presume to tell me what or why I believe anything.
                    • If you'll just go with "Experts say that a sitting President can be indicted", without giving your own opinion supported by facts, then good for you. I prefer to think for myself, but then...that's... more
                      • Obviously, you did NOT read my actual response.Sia☺giah, Fri Dec 14 10:29pm
                        I don't need to give MY personal opinion on the matter since I am NOT a legal scholar. I will accept the conclusions of both Kenneth Starr and Leon Jaworski that, YES, a sitting POTUS can be... more
                      • You Quoted It, But...Amadeus, Fri Dec 14 4:37pm
                        ...your interpretation of it is... what? Nonsense? Simply because the portion on impeachment explicitly mentions that impeachment does not abridge the ability to indict a president afterward does not ... more
                    • Spelled out for youSia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 8:07pm
                      This is what Kenneth Starr put in writing regarding indicting Bill Clinton. It's been locked in the national archives for 2 decades, but was released to the NYT under the Freedom of Information Act... more
                  • You're a silly. You make dumb arguments that a child can blow holes in with ease as I just did. Answer why you believe the President is immune from the you silly troll.
              • as an adult you would have learned how to have adult discussions. Why are you here wasting our tax dollars is a better question.
      • the phrase SOME of the experts was written by YOUSia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 2:05pm
        I merely pointed out that EXPERTS on the issue do NOT all agree because there is wiggle room for many viewpoints. NOTHING is so specifically written that it MUST be done the way you're claiming it... more
Click here to receive daily updates