One cannot break the law, when one is above it.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:04
VIEWED: 4836
PAGE 1 of 5
Who here thinks the President- any President- is above the law?
Who thinks the prez should be as answerable to the laws of the land as any other citizen?
Who sees a necessary blurring of the two?
Curious Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
yeah, i kinda thought the whole point of having the Law is that it applies to everyone. otherwise, it becomes a completely different concept in direct conflict with the definition we give it.
"I'd be totally hacked if Stimutacs wasn't so . . ."
"Outrageously chill?"
"Word."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good question.
I think the President should be subject to the law just as any other citizen, with four exceptions:
1) Diplomatic Immunity while in other countries. Because the president serves diplomatic functions, he should be entitled to the same immunities.
2) Immunity from Misdemeanors and Petty offenses. Otherwise his political enemies could arrange for him to be constantly tied up with Jaywalking, Littering, and Speeding charges.
3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used. If you try to harm the president, you should expect to be severely maimed or killed during attempts to stop you.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.
Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now that you mention it, why is it acceptable for the President's defense (which I agree with), but not for the common citizen?
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used.
Ahhh, because his life is more valuable, him being *Coughrich* the President and all...
OJ was also allowed to use excessive force to teach his wife a lesson, it ain't political, it's economic Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
no one is above the law, especially the president
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
no one is above the law, especially the president
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Good question.
I think the President should be subject to the law just as any other citizen, with four exceptions:
1) Diplomatic Immunity while in other countries. Because the president serves diplomatic functions, he should be entitled to the same immunities.
2) Immunity from Misdemeanors and Petty offenses. Otherwise his political enemies could arrange for him to be constantly tied up with Jaywalking, Littering, and Speeding charges.
3) Legal authority to use any force necessary to defend his life. He shouldn't have to run and hide behind a shrub (as is the case with the self-defense laws in many states.) Rather, he and his security escort should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop an attacker, without regard to being forced to moderate and measure the force used. If you try to harm the president, you should expect to be severely maimed or killed during attempts to stop you.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.
Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
You make some interesting points, but should these
be applicable to all heads of state... even the ones which do not enjoy the favour of the US ?
And I for one would argue that diplomatic immunity
should not apply when charged by the ICC...
" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "
The Killers
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To be entirely honest, I think the self defense laws in most states are rediculous. But since the people disagree with me, let's at least protect the President.
When I got my Concealed weapons permit in Florida, there was (of course) a required class on legal use of force. I learned that if someone was attacking me, and I had the physical ability to attempt evasion, I was REQUIRED by law to run and try to hide behind something.
Moreover, if I was being beat up, and I whipped out my knife and eviscerated my attacker, I could be brought up on charges.
I think that's just silly. But either the majority or the vocal minority decided that's how it was going to be.
Since then, incidentally, the defense laws in Florida have changed a bit. You are now allowed to stand and defend yourself. But many other states still require you to flee and evade until you are physically incapable of it. And of course, many states don't let you use a weapon in self defense.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's fun here is defining "the law". In the USA for example, just because the Congress passes a law and the President signs it, that doesn't make it a valid law. The Judiciary can declare in Unconstitutional if they find that it violates their interpretation of the Constitution. For instance, the Congress could pass legislation, and the President either sign it or veto and the veto be overturned, that all left-handed red-heads no longer have the right to vote. The Judiciary at the highest level (Supreme Court) could declare this legislation Unconstitutional, and that would end the matter, unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed.
Checks and balances. Gotta love it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, sort of.
My understanding is that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved until there is a court case where the law is challenged.
Unconstitutional laws can circulate and be enforced for years or decades because of this.
It would be nice if all new laws that Congress passed had to be vetted by the Supreme Court before they could be enacted.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME