The American legal system fundamentally holds that for every wrong there is a remedy.

[Stinky The Clown]

If I were to punch you and break your glasses, I would be subject to criminal law, with the remedy being jail time or at least probation. I would also be subject to civil law to pay you back for your new glasses. There could also be some monetary settlement for your pain and suffering.

When one company steals another company's intellectual property, courts hold court, injunctions injunct, cease and desist causes ceasing and desisting, money changes hands from injurer to injured.

The system is set up to be adversarial. The harmer and the harmed.

We now find ourselves, as a nation, with a person occupying the office of president who clearly got there by cheating. By cheating, he harmed us all, but most particularly, those who voted against him and those who decided to vote for him based on falsehoods, lies, and malicious puffery. The country is the injured party. Trump and his inner circle are the injurers.

Surely there has to be a remedy.

[jberryhill]

1. Not really

That's just a saying.

And you have it wrong anway.

The maxim is: Ubi jus ibi remedium which approximates to "For every RIGHT, there is a remedy."

You have amusingly turned it into "for every wrong" instead, and supposed it to mean that there is a cure for every ill. That's not even what the maxim is driving at. The actual maxim suggests that where the law defines a right to something, and that right is violated, then the law provides a remedy for the violation of that right. What that also means, of course, is that if the law does not define a "right", then violation of some principle, or causation of some harm which is not in violation of a legally defined right, does NOT have a remedy.

I can certainly get where 'for every wrong there is a remedy' is appealing. It is sometimes surprising how many people believe "I am pissed off about something, therefore I can sue someone about it", when whatever it is that is bothering them is not what is called "cognizable harm" in the first place - i.e. a species of harm for which there is no legal remedy.

But, regardless of your misreading of it, it's not as if these sorts of maxims operate like laws of physics.

[Volaris]

3. You're correct. For some things,

The remedies are not specifically court-orderable...the court cannot ORDER the impeachment of a president, for example, that 'remedy' is completely up to the political actors occupying the stage of elected office. Another is executive pardon power...there is no RIGHT to it, and the court cannot order that a pardon be issued, (or not), as it's use rests soley within the power of the Executive Office. Even if the court thought issuing a pardon would be an appropriate remedy for some actual violated Right, again, they don't have the power to order one issued.

[harumph]

4. Let's cut to the chase -

I understand the issue for Trump is that he violated campaign finance laws in order to "hide" facts that
if they were to be revealed (might) adversely affect him in the 2016 race. Does that proscription against "hiding" to "influence" imply
the American voters have a right to certain information with which to base their voting decisions; i.e., in the same
way a publicly traded company must disclose certain information to the public or face sanctions?

If so, what kinds of information should be disclosed (what if he paid someone not to disclose that he craves chocolate).

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I'm glad I amuse you

[FM123]

2. Between Sir Mueller & the Sovereign District of NY, they will think of a remedy....

[harumph]

5. gentleman's agreements suppose there are "gentlemen."

There ought to be a hard rule that candidates for president surrender at least 10 years of tax records for public review.
There ought to be a hard rule against nepotism for even "aid" positions in the white house.
There ought to be a hard rule that assets (e.g., hotel's and the proceeds therefrom) be held in a real - not pretend - trust.
There ought to be a hard rule that a senator or representative must wait 6 years after leaving office before becoming a lobbyist.
There needs to be an independent agency to scrutinize suspicious market gains that our politicians seem to magically obtain.

Most of all, federal office needs to be the kind of office that requires sacrifice and not a position sought after by gladhanders and
grifters.