View Poll Results: Should any President be above our laws?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 11.11%
  • No.

    16 88.89%
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 98
Thanks Tree27Thanks

Thread: Should any President be above our laws?

  1. #31
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,754
    Thanks
    38758

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    I believe that our current system works. A president should have to be removed from office before being charged with a crime. It is too easy for political foes to create something to drum up public opinion to try and bring charges. If a president was compelled to spend a lot of time defending himself or herself from malicious prosecutions it could really hurt the country.
    Like Clinton with the four year Whitewater investigation that found no evidence of malfeasance but did manage to get him to lie about a blow job and get him impeached? That kind of malicious prosecution?

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,113
    Thanks
    6735

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    Like Clinton with the four year Whitewater investigation that found no evidence of malfeasance but did manage to get him to lie about a blow job and get him impeached? That kind of malicious prosecution?
    Obviously you have a very partisan view of what happened. And you are wrong. Bill Clinton perjured himself in a sworn deposition in a civil case. That wasn't a malicious prosecution. That was a womanizer who lied to cover up his adultery and sexual harassment. But we know how you think they were all just lying bitches.

  3. #33
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,188
    Thanks
    10823

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Your position is not constitutionally justified. The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation. U.S. Const. art. II, 3. The president cannot have it both ways.
    I know what it is currently but this thread is about whether or not we should change it so he is above the law in certain circumstances.

    Many presidents have broken laws that helped our nation move forward in the past.

    I am not referring to things like money laundering or stuff like that but there are times when presidents need to break the law and they should not be held accountable for doing so.

    If they start fearing that they will not perform their job as well as the possibly could.

  4. #34
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,188
    Thanks
    10823

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Executive orders. As such, a president can suspend or revoke it. It is not so much "illegal" according to American law as it is against executive branch policy.
    Executive orders carry the full weight of law.

  5. #35
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,269
    Thanks
    23758

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    I am not referring to things like money laundering or stuff like that but there are times when presidents need to break the law and they should not be held accountable for doing so.
    And how do you assess the "need" to do something illegal? It sounds like you simply want to follow the Nixon standard.



    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    If they start fearing that they will not perform their job as well as the possibly could.
    If they start fearing the consequences of breaking the law, that is a good thing. You cannot simultaneously be a credible chief executive officer of a country while possessing the power to break the law anytime you find it inconvenient - which is not only what would happen, but is what has happened at least once before. At least Nixon had enough integrity to resign.

  6. #36
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,269
    Thanks
    23758

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Executive orders carry the full weight of law.
    Nothing to do with anything I said. A president can suspend or revoke an executive order. An EO is executive branch policy for carrying out a particular law or laws.

  7. #37
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,188
    Thanks
    10823

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    And how do you assess the "need" to do something illegal? It sounds like you simply want to follow the Nixon standard.




    If they start fearing the consequences of breaking the law, that is a good thing. You cannot simultaneously be a credible chief executive officer of a country while possessing the power to break the law anytime you find it inconvenient - which is not only what would happen, but is what has happened at least once before. At least Nixon had enough integrity to resign.
    That is what our impeachment process is for.

    If they feel the president wasn't correct in breaking a certain law they can remove him from office.

    But to hold the threat of criminal prosecution over them for an action they may take is counter-productive.

  8. #38
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,188
    Thanks
    10823

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Nothing to do with anything I said. A president can suspend or revoke an executive order. An EO is executive branch policy for carrying out a particular law or laws.
    That would be the definition of it but in reality EO's can create whole new laws.

    I would reference you to Executive Order 11233.

  9. #39
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    60,106
    Thanks
    17863

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    That is what our impeachment process is for.

    If they feel the president wasn't correct in breaking a certain law they can remove him from office.

    But to hold the threat of criminal prosecution over them for an action they may take is counter-productive.
    Impeachment is a purely political indictment and has nothing to do with being punished by the government for crimes one has committed against the United States.
    Why should a president be allowed to rob banks, rape babies or kill people and only face losing his job......if his party isn't in power in Congress?
    Your argument is absurd.
    Last edited by Devil505; 9th June 2017 at 02:50 PM.

  10. #40
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,269
    Thanks
    23758

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    That is what our impeachment process is for.

    If they feel the president wasn't correct in breaking a certain law they can remove him from office.
    Well, the president cannot be prosecuted while in office anyway; prosecution would have to wait pending impeachment and removal. However, an investigation into his activities is a proper prelude to impeachment. But impeachment is no threat if no investigation is possible in order for such a determination can be made. That is what was done with Clinton under the old Independent Prosecutor law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    But to hold the threat of criminal prosecution over them for an action they may take is counter-productive.
    No, it is not. As with anyone else, he should be afraid of prosecution for breaking the law - just like anyone else. That is where impeachment can get you, and what it is for in the first place.

    See U.S. Const. art. II, 4.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26th February 2017, 02:52 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 29th January 2012, 06:04 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 4th March 2011, 04:36 AM
  4. Gun laws
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 16th August 2009, 01:40 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed