For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    If a POTUS is immune can they be impeached? Or maybe impeached but not removed? As typically if one is immune it means they cannot be charged. If one cannot be charged how can they be impeached/removed?

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The republicans have officially made impeachment a purely political performance, just like they’ve treated it for decades.

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.

      • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes, under the constitution, which the Court just put the President above. If the President might be immune then anything the President did is not admissible in court now. So how does the Senate even hold a trial, let alone convict a President when they cannot enter any evidence now?

        This decision is written in a bad faith way to get Trump out of being tried, and with the knowledge that Biden will not exploit it and the hope that Trump wins and becomes our new king. The “conservative” Justices can get their “gratuity” and retire living out the rest of their lives taken care of.

        • valaramech@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Impeachment proceedings are not judicial proceedings; they’re political ones. Both processes use similar language because the process is similar, but they are not connected. Commission of a crime is not required for impeachment proceedings and being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate conveys no criminal punishment.

        • oxjox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          the constitution, which the Court just put the President above.

          Are you joking?

          The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

          Also,

          The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because the legislatures power to impeach and convict isn’t dependent on the judiciary.

      Criminal and civil charges are a judicial branch thing. Impeachment is a legislative branch thing. The legislature does not answer to the judiciary, and the judiciary doesn’t have the power to tell the legislature how or when they execute their constitutional authority. Basically the only restriction is that the need some manner of “due process”, or to be basically fair.

      There’s the office of the president and the individual who is the president. Both are often called “the president”.

      In this case, it was ruled that the individual cannot be criminally charged for doing actions defined as a role of the office in the constitution: constitution says the president can veto bills, so a law saying it’s criminal to do so is unconstitutional.
      There are other activities listed, the “official acts” bit, that are to be presumed to be immune unless you can prove otherwise, like the president communicating with the justice department.

      The ruling didn’t change the ability of the office of the president to be sued or constrained, only delineated when you can legally go after the individual. “Delineated” because this has never been relevant before, so it didn’t matter that we hadn’t answered the question.

      It’s a bad ruling not because it makes the president unremovable, but because those “other official acts” are given way too much slack.