Amadeus
Your Analysis Ignores...
Mon Mar 4, 2019 9:56am
104.129.200.71 (XFF: 198.35.75.3)

...a glaring hole.

What if the President were indicted, but refused to leave office? What recourse would we have? The whole government could collapse! We need a way to remove a President from office, not merely prosecuting him/her for crimes. And there might be situations where prosecution isn't called for, but removal from office might be. What then?

This is why impeachment was necessary, and why it was called out specifically and separately.

I would wager that the Federalist Papers offer no argument about the prosecution and indictment of the President for two reasons.

1) It was obvious and assumed that the President could be indicted and prosecuted. The President is a citizen and is not above the law.
2) By opening that line of argument, you allow the opposing side to argue that a President might accrue such power as to thumb his/her nose at the law and avoid indictment and prosecution, like a King.

Better to simply address the weakness rather than open a second front in the discussion.

Amadeus

  • "The Federalist Papers ill serves judicial opinion writing when cited for anything but analyzing the largest constitutional structures and their purposes "...yeah, like impeachment and how a sitting... more
    • Your Analysis Ignores... — Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 9:56am
      • Amadeus: "I would wager that the Federalist Papers offer no argument about the prosecution and indictment of the President for two reasons." That's incorrect. In TWO PLACES, the Federalist Papers say ... more
        • Thanks For The Correction...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:25am
          The first reference (#65) actually uses "still be liable" which indicates a continuing state of vulnerability to prosecution. The second (#69) presupposes that impeachment would come first, and then... more
          • Ah, and there's the rub, as they say.SES, Mon Mar 4 11:36am
            I can point to what the Constitution actually says, and to the words of Alexander Hamilton, to support my position. The other position can only SPECULATE based on what is NOT in the Constitution, and ... more
            • Ironically...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:46am
              ...you are not pointing to what the Constitution says. You are pointing to a blank spot. The Constitution does NOT say, for example: "The President must be impeached and removed from office before... more
              • with the diametrically opposed arguments of the experts... Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically. In the end,... more
                • Nope. Not correct.SES, Mon Mar 4 12:11pm
                  Sia: "Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically ." The argument isn't that the order of impeachment-indictment... more
                  • Ooooh, Don't Play Fast And Loose...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:32pm
                    ...there with the words. We already went over that it was only ONE reference that was specific about the order. Amadeus
                    • It's in both #65 and #69. Your bad.SES, Mon Mar 4 3:42pm
                      The Federalist Papers : No. 65 - "After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution ... more
                      • "Will Still Be" vs "Will Then Be"Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 4:01pm
                        Words have meaning. "Will still be" means that he already was "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law" but the state of being liable to such continued after impeachment... more
                  • She's not wrong, some do believe that.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 12:33pm
                    And again, you're making claims about you you concede IS NOT in the Constitution. The full circle is you sitting on your thumb, spinning around.
              • ...slam dunk to me is that in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was trying to assure Delegates that a President would not be immune to punishment and removal from office, as the British King... more
                • You Keep Repeating The Same Arguments...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:34pm
                  ...even after they've been countered. I don't see a reason to keep repeating the counterarguments. You can go back and reread them if you've forgotten them. Suffice it to say that you are no more... more
                  • ...Hamilton DIDN'T Use "The President COULD BE indicted" to assure New York's Delegates that a President could be held to account for wrongdoing?
                    • Why Couldn't A President Be Indicted?Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:58pm
                      Why don't meteorologists tell us when it isn't going to rain orange juice? Amadeus
                      • ...what COULDN'T happen, as it is to expect a Weatherman to say "It isn't going to rain Orange Juice". It's as stupid to expect the Constitution, which contains VERY DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS on how a... more
                        • You're So Close...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 10:16pm
                          Is the President a citizen? Yes. The President must be a citizen according to the Constitution. Are all citizens bound by the law? Yes, all citizens are bound by the law. Is the President, then,... more
                          • ...probably tell you to "P*ss off!" Since she thinks that "experts" "vehemently" and "enormously" disagree, you are not allowed to claim that you are correct... ...according to the Admin.
                            • Actually no she's not disagreeing with opinions.HeavyHemi, Tue Mar 5 12:31pm
                              Here again we can read the posts and see that you are in fast being dishonest about the content of them. You have in fact claimed quotes that were not made to make your arguments. That is dishonest... more
                        • Nope, this is complete nonsensiscal babbling.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 5:35pm
                          I mean if you understood whether the Constitution is prescriptive or proscriptive. Or perhaps if you quit conflating the concepts in your *arguments' in mid stride... You're really quite inept.
                • Then you get even more silly by changing it to 'discussing facts' while using the word 'intent'. Do you have a dictionary?
Click here to receive daily updates