I have a question for legal/constitutional law expert types

[DUlover2909]

I have a few of questions actually.

1. Why doesn't the Constitution have the Supreme Court rule on impeachment from the House? The Senate is all elected officials that may or may not have the legal expertise to determine guilt or innocence. In addition, it's a political entity which could (and will be) affected by their political affiliations. The courts are supposed to be unpoliticized in that after confirmation the justices do not have to run for office.

2. If the president or vice-president got caught shoplifting on videotape, would Congress have to impeach him or her? Couldn't the store owner press charges and have him or her arrested? Wouldn't there then be an investigation and a trial in a criminal court?

3. If the president or vice-president committs a crime and it can be proven by their own testimony on videotape and mounds of other evidence, including rulings from federal courts describing the executive branch's actions as unconstitutional, why can't they also be arrested and charged just like they had been caught shoplifting?

I hope some of you read this and can enlighten me.

[billyoc]

1. Impeachment is not a legal action, it's a political action.

It was set up that way to make it easier to impeach, ironically. :hi:

[jmp]

7. Exactly. (nm)

...

[uppityperson]

2. Legal charges (like shoplifitg) have to wait until pres is out of office.

I don't think they can be prosecuted while in office. Back during the Clenis days I remember people muttering "wait until he leaves office, we'll get him then" though I think it had all blown over, so to speak, by then.

[DUlover2909]

3. This is unlikely, but what if he murdered someone

in broad daylight and behaved like a lunatic? Couldn't he be arrested then?

[uppityperson]

5. Hasn't happened yet. I think not, some immunity thing.

[BadgerLaw2010]

8. Hasn't been tested, but unlikely due to the precedent it would set.

The power to charge would put the President at the mercy of whatever prosecutor claimed jurisdiction to bring criminal charges. Since the President moves around quite a lot, that's an awful lot of potential prosecutors at both the federal and state level.

The President can also fire US Attorneys. What if a US Attorney brought criminal felony charges? If they are groundless, the President could fire him. If they are not groundless, the President could still fire him, but it would look quite different to the country. And, as anyone who has ever been charged with a major crime can tell you, the stigma of being charged is enormous. Political suicide to maim the President wouldn't be out of the question in a very hostile political environment. And who decides how well grounded the charges are? When? Before or after the President retaliates against the US Attorney?

We had that happen once before, of course, although it wasn't as extreme as pending criminal charges with intent to put the sitting President in jail.

I think he would have to be impeached first, which wouldn't be that much in question if he actually committed a blatant common felony like murder.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. I'm Not An Expert, But...

1. The Senate "merely" acts as a jury - the trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and, I believe, prosecuted by members of the House. just as a jury in a criminal trial is composed of "normal citizens", being a jury in an impeachment should require no more expertise.

2. A criminal conviction is totally separate from impeachment. Impeachment is not for breaking the law - rather, it is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which essentially means anything that Congress wants it to mean. The Founders deliberately left vague the reasons for impeachment. So criminal conviction can occur without causing impeachment, and impeachment can proceed without a criminal act.

3. See 2.

[onenote]

9. exactly right

[sandnsea]

6. trumped up crimes

As I recall, there was a lot of that going on before the Revolution. I think they put elected governance entirely in the hands of the people for that very reason. I suppose, theoretically, a President could get caught shoplifting and remain President. Some would say Clinton was guilty of perjury, based on his penalties after he left office, but remained President.

There's also legislation about elected officials that attempts to prevent criminal or civil legal entanglements, so that can't become a political distraction either. I always thought the Paula Jones stuff should have been delayed until after he left office.

Anyway, the founders trusted the people to deal with elected officials, in a nutshell. If we want impeachment, it's up to us to pressure the media to start making the case.