USA court decision on presidential immunity
I do not understand how it could turn out like this. Can anyone explain in an unbiased way how it is constitutionally correct?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
4meAndyou · F
I don't understand enough about the law to really tell you that, but it all hinges on the separation of powers in this country. We have the executive branch, which is the president and vice president. They are like the CEO of the country. They have to handle the budget, expenditures, security, foreign relations, and a lot more.
Then we have the Congressional branch, which makes our laws....and the Judicial Branch which adjudicates problems or issues with the law that need to be decided.
So the problem or issue the Supreme Court had to decide was whether or not all these court cases could be brought against a former president...because past precedent tells us that a President can not be arrested for a crime while he is serving in office.
Past precedent is important in the law, and there was a great deal of that to consider.
One thing that might tell you WHY a President has to be immune while serving in office is that he must be free to make decisions, and make them quickly.
The President can NOT always stop and take the time to wonder if they do thus and so, will they be arrested for it after their term in office is over. And...worst case scenario...if they decide NOT to do something because they are worried they might get prosecuted for it later...but that something REALLY should have been done...well...our nation might end up in a lot of trouble.
The Supreme Court has ruled once and for all that we can't tie the Presidents' hands with worry about what will happen to them later.
Then we have the Congressional branch, which makes our laws....and the Judicial Branch which adjudicates problems or issues with the law that need to be decided.
So the problem or issue the Supreme Court had to decide was whether or not all these court cases could be brought against a former president...because past precedent tells us that a President can not be arrested for a crime while he is serving in office.
Past precedent is important in the law, and there was a great deal of that to consider.
One thing that might tell you WHY a President has to be immune while serving in office is that he must be free to make decisions, and make them quickly.
The President can NOT always stop and take the time to wonder if they do thus and so, will they be arrested for it after their term in office is over. And...worst case scenario...if they decide NOT to do something because they are worried they might get prosecuted for it later...but that something REALLY should have been done...well...our nation might end up in a lot of trouble.
The Supreme Court has ruled once and for all that we can't tie the Presidents' hands with worry about what will happen to them later.
