This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is susceptible to last-day shenanigans - if Congress can't impeach you fast enough, do you get away with it?
This is why presidents issue the bulk of their pardons on their last day in office.
Moreover, if the president does something heinous on the last day of his administration, what's stopping the next president from ordering the DOJ to prosecute and investigate? What's stopping Congress from issuing a subpoena and hauling the last guy in? What's stopping a federal prosecutor from opening a case and bringing charges? This is all baked in. All this ruling means is that, in the ensuing legal battle, your last-day president gets to argue that what he did was an official act.
Nothing, they just can't build a case if it depends on evidence precluded by simple absolute immunity.
The aforementioned simple absolute immunity.
Aside from bribery cases being guaranteed to fail in the absence of evidence of mental state, nothing.
For bribery specifically, you must prove the President's mental state of knowingly taking a bribe. The majority ruling explicitly forbids the courts from considering the President's mental state when determining if actions taken under the powers granted by the constitution are improper. And the president talking to his executive officers is explicitly a power granted by the constitution. So if the President says he wasn't taking a bribe, he was just talking with his officers... End of story, this crime cannot be prosecuted because evidence to the contrary is subject to absolute immunity, and is required for conviction.
What good does it do to prosecute a case if, by definition, you are guaranteed to fail?
At this point, the President would have invoked executive privilege, and Congress would have launched an impeachment inquiry, or campaigned on doing so.
But again, this does nothing. There's no declarative requirement for the President to e.g. invoke executive privilege. The President has absolute immunity for seeking opinions from his officers, it's not something he has to argue, he just says he was seeking an opinion and that's the end of the discussion; you can't subpoena parties or submit records of the conversation as evidence, and without that, you have no evidence of bribery. And as far as I can tell, impeachment (even after leaving office, which is out on a limb at best) doesn't strip absolute immunity. There is no legal battle, because the required evidence to prove a crime or any circumstances under which immunity wouldn't apply, impeachment or otherwise, cannot be considered by the court.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That probably already happens with pardons. See Bill Clinton.
There is a discussion of whether there can be a post presidency impeachment. I see why not if doing so is a necessary step to remove the immunity.
The flip side is with the right venue shopping the opponents can easily make cases against the prior president. That seems like a bigger problem compared to obvious corruption.
I think the easy ruling should’ve been “when president is acting qua president he cannot be sanctioned until impeached and convicted.” The impeachment process is the closest thing to a true jury of peers.
The outcome of an impeachment is, at worst, removal from office. Nothing about impeachment appears to grant anyone authority to strip absolute immunity conferred to actions taken pursuant to constitutionally granted powers of the President while the President was President.
ETA:
I'd read that as allowing subsequent prosecution, but not somehow removing absolute immunity from actions taken while still the President. If not, you could plausibly impeach and try every president immediately after they leave office, or whenever an opposing party gets a majority in the Senate, for crimes even intended to be obviated by the president's official powers. In which case, why grant immunity at all?
Let me respond to your edit.
I don’t think the structure of the sentence suggest a separate unrelated offense. The first part of the clause tells us that impeachment and conviction goes no further than removal from offense (ie there is no jail sentence). We then told however that if the law brings the president up on charges he now could be subject to a jail sentence. The natural read to me is they are talking about the same offense (ie what would be the relevance of a future crime). No I think this is to head of discussions that the first crime was already adjudicated.
The constitution requires if memory serves 2/3 of the senate (ie super majority). It would be pretty much impossible to have a conviction absent bipartisan support whereas with the right venue the ex president could be subject to criminal liability purely by his partisan opponents.
The constitution clearly delineates between "Law" and "Impeachment", and the two are unrelated. I see the word "nevertheless" here meaning "this clause is about impeachment, not about the method of criminally prosecuting the president in spite of their absolute immunity", rather than "but if you remove them from office, you can now also do this other stuff".
I could be wrong, and if so I think you make a compelling argument for what right looks like.
Edit: See The_Nybbler's point here.
I agree there is a delineation. But given that no where does the constitution mention absolute immunity, it seems like a reasonable way to square the circle here given that ultimately this is a question of separation of powers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the idea would be that if Congress determines those actions were high crimes and misdemeanors, then they were ultra vires and therefore not entitled to immunity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link