Thanks for providing me an opportunity to address your concerns. This piece was about whether Meese's Amicus Brief raised issues that might disqualify Smith's actions as Special Counsel. I did include that all president's had "Presidential Immunity:" I did not write that this was "Absolute Immunity."
What they had was qualified immunity as described in the Nixon vs Fitzgerald opinion. They way you worded it, it implied every previous president had something that Trump didn't.
Also, if every previous president had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions while he is in office, then why did Nixon need a pardon from President Ford to avoid being tried for charges arising from the Watergate case?
As a lawyer, it would be great if you could actually inform your readers regarding what the law is on the claim of immunity for Trump. You state every previous president has had immunity. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this question. In Nixon vs Fitzgerald, they ruled the president has absolute immunity for civil damages arising from actions taken while in office. However, for potential criminal violations from official and unofficial acts while he is in office , he does not have absolute immunity. They said sovereign immunity should not be accorded to the president, otherwise the president would be above the law. For Trump to prevail in the Supreme Court, a majority of the Justices would have to overrule this decision in Nixon vs Fitzgerald.
Impeachment is always an option against a sitting President. That is one built-in checks and balance clearly intended to deter extra-legal presidential acts. Remove first, then let the courts deal with bona fide criminal charges.
Witnessing even the appearance of a lack of neutrality within our judicial system today, I however question who needs protection the most? The people from the President; or the president from The People.
Sorry, it ever came to this, but I do believe we are at a cross-road in our now aging system of constitutional governance. Works well in theory, but full of inherent weaknesses now in its maturing reality.
You may be right. My only point is that every president did not have immunity as the author claimed. Nixon didn't have it and for that matter Clinton didn't either. He was hauled before a grand jury investigating him for perjury and obstruction of justice while he was president.
Excellent piece Mr. Zepke. I heard a Constitutional Attorney on the Dennis Prager show (maybe Mark Levin's show?) Say that the particular clause's that they are trying to use against President were nullified by the Supreme Court in the 1890s & 1920s.
Thanks for providing me an opportunity to address your concerns. This piece was about whether Meese's Amicus Brief raised issues that might disqualify Smith's actions as Special Counsel. I did include that all president's had "Presidential Immunity:" I did not write that this was "Absolute Immunity."
What they had was qualified immunity as described in the Nixon vs Fitzgerald opinion. They way you worded it, it implied every previous president had something that Trump didn't.
Also, if every previous president had absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions while he is in office, then why did Nixon need a pardon from President Ford to avoid being tried for charges arising from the Watergate case?
As a lawyer, it would be great if you could actually inform your readers regarding what the law is on the claim of immunity for Trump. You state every previous president has had immunity. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this question. In Nixon vs Fitzgerald, they ruled the president has absolute immunity for civil damages arising from actions taken while in office. However, for potential criminal violations from official and unofficial acts while he is in office , he does not have absolute immunity. They said sovereign immunity should not be accorded to the president, otherwise the president would be above the law. For Trump to prevail in the Supreme Court, a majority of the Justices would have to overrule this decision in Nixon vs Fitzgerald.
Impeachment is always an option against a sitting President. That is one built-in checks and balance clearly intended to deter extra-legal presidential acts. Remove first, then let the courts deal with bona fide criminal charges.
Witnessing even the appearance of a lack of neutrality within our judicial system today, I however question who needs protection the most? The people from the President; or the president from The People.
Sorry, it ever came to this, but I do believe we are at a cross-road in our now aging system of constitutional governance. Works well in theory, but full of inherent weaknesses now in its maturing reality.
You may be right. My only point is that every president did not have immunity as the author claimed. Nixon didn't have it and for that matter Clinton didn't either. He was hauled before a grand jury investigating him for perjury and obstruction of justice while he was president.
Excellent piece Mr. Zepke. I heard a Constitutional Attorney on the Dennis Prager show (maybe Mark Levin's show?) Say that the particular clause's that they are trying to use against President were nullified by the Supreme Court in the 1890s & 1920s.
Steve Hansen