General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have been repeatedly surprised by the conservative mind-set of many here.
It has been said that one of the core principles of conservatism is: "Nothing should ever be done for the first time". In other words, conservatives always prefer to play it safe. They want things done the way they have "always" been done even when dealing with totally unprecedented problems. Their fallback position is always "follow the rules", even when the issue being addressed was either totally unheard of when the "rule" was written or was just not considered by those who wrote the rules.
These folks argue simply that, " If it ain't in the Constitution, you can't do it. You've got to follow the rules!"
There is one rule that says a sitting president* cannot be indicted.
There is another rule, called the Statute of Limitations, that most federal crimes---like, say, obstruction of justice---must be filed within five years of commission or they are barred.
"By the rules", Trump could be re-elected by the electoral college despite again losing the popular vote.
So, when Trump finishes his second term and, by the rules, could be indicted, most everything he's done up till now and within the next 10 months or so will be barred by the 5 year Statute of Limitations. How does that unlikely but possible scenario strike you? No "rules" would be broken.
The Constitution says nothing about cell phones or fully automatic rifles or TV advertising, yet laws regulating them are not deemed unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted or "construed" in new ways so as to accommodate new situations and technology and issues not dreamed of by the Foundng Fathers. I don't believe that the possibility of a traitorous criminal POTUS being shielded by a complicit partisan Senate was anything anyone dreamed might happen.
I do not say that we should ignore the law. I am simply suggesting that we USE the law in unprecedented ways to remedy unprecedented wrongs.
This is not the time to play it safe or say that we need a guarantee of success before we do battle. Let's be open to pursuing anything that can fit WITHIN our constitution even if it's "never been done before".
no_hypocrisy
(46,234 posts)Timewas
(2,196 posts)Nothing in the constitution says a sitting president cannot be indicted, it is only an idea that has been set by the justice department based on the premise that it would infringe on potus not being able to do his job as president if under indictment but that is all it is,and since that is a fallacy (especially with t-rump)there is no real reason that it cannot be done..since this one is not doing anything anyways
TwilightZone
(25,499 posts)The vague insults to some DUers notwithstanding, your post doesn't seem to provide any solutions.
I'm all for using the law in whatever means necessary to hold Trump accountable. Since you seem to have some insight, what are you proposing we do?
The "no president can be indicted" rule isn't really a rule. It's based on a memo from the Justice Department. I think it's likely that Mueller or one of the states will end up testing its constitutionality. Many legal experts believe that POTUS can be indicted.
As far as the statute of limitations is concerned, the only sure-fire way to ensure it never comes in to play is to ensure that Trump is voted out in 2020.
Timewas
(2,196 posts)Only applies if no charges are brought,once charges have been brought and an indictment is handed down they stop and the trial can be anytime within the "right to a speedy trial concept".
TwilightZone
(25,499 posts)I'm guessing they know how the statute of limitations works in their various jurisdictions.
Timewas
(2,196 posts)Was because there seemed to be some question about it. I am also pretty sure Mueller knows what he is doing..
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)three days now?
Atticus
(15,124 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Depending on the particular whine fest.
And I was hoping for another annulment thread.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,927 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Unfortunately, your principal issue is not with conservatives but with people who have a better grasp of law.
The time periods of statutes of limitations can be tolled or paused under a variety of circumstances. That the proposed defendant was temporarily immune from prosecution would be a reason that is consistent with general tolling principles.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)Limitations due to the prosecution choosing to abide by a non-binding DOC policy. Or, you could explain your theory as to why else Trump is "temporarily immune from prosecution."
But, please, no more of that squishy "consistent with general tolling principles".
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Got me thinking...
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)pbmus
(12,422 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)When people tell you reasons those ideas are unrealistic, they are now, de facto, conservatives?
Uh, no.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)on you posting the same nonsense over and over again?
Atticus
(15,124 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It has not been justiciable - a president would have to be indicted and then object that it is unconstitutional and then take that through the appeals process.
One thing discouraging to see it "getting rid of the Electoral College will take a Constitutional Amendment which is impossible." But it has been amended before. It takes a long time. Susan B. Anthony didn't even live to see what she started, but she didn't just proclaim it impossible because it wouldn't happen right away.