Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Should presidents have immunity from the law?


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Quote

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a ground-breaking legal case that promises to rock the 2024 election. The case relates to former president Donald Trump and presidential immunity, and more specifically whether a former US president has to answer to civil and criminal charges against them.

US presidential immunity is a heavily contested issue. It has been argued that presidents should not face at least some types of legal action for the decisions they make in office. But does this mean that a president gets to run under a different law to everyone else? And under what exact circumstances?

https://theconversation.com/should-presidents-have-immunity-from-the-law-the-us-supreme-court-is-to-hear-trumps-case-224775

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’m divided between yes and no. But leaning no if the crimes were committed during his/her term.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like all things in life... it depends.  

I think the issue with Presidents is that as we are seeing now, political rivals will abuse the justice system to drown their opponents in legal cases whether those cases have any real merit or not.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best answer is another question … “do you want to have a dictator? Because this is how you get a dictator”.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would need to be a clear definition between personal gain and exercising the interests of the nation in order to make that claim of immunity. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

There would need to be a clear definition between personal gain and exercising the interests of the nation in order to make that claim of immunity. 

“L’estate, c’est moi” 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

“L’estate, c’est moi” 

For a monarch or dictator it might be true but surely not for a democratic elected servant of the state

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Unusual Tournament said:

For a monarch or dictator it might be true but surely not for a democratic elected servant of the state

If they have total immunity? This is how you get dictators.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If they have total immunity? This is how you get dictators.

Well this is what the original poster is asking. Should presidents sitting and ex have perpetual immunity. I say no. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Well this is what the original poster is asking. Should presidents sitting and ex have perpetual immunity. I say no. 

Mea culpa, I misread your post. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Essan said:

No.

Presidents, prime ministers and, indeed, all senior politicians should be held more accountable to the law. 

They are the people who are trusted with running the country and setting the laws.  If they don't abide by them, why should anyone else?

Lead by example or don't lead at all.

How is this not the only correct answer? 

(We all know why... )

Edited by Occupational Hubris
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Depends on the issue. But in the general sense my answer is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Not a can of worms you wanna be opening imho….

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2024 at 10:45 AM, Sgt84801 said:

I’m divided between yes and no. But leaning no if the crimes were committed during his/her term.

I'm reasonably sure that is the only period that is being discussed by Trump.  If presidents are suddenly left in legal jeopardy for decisions they make AS PRESIDENT that might harm individuals without intending to do so, what president could ever make a decision without it being second-guessed and him being prosecuted after he left office?  Despite the nonsense being discussed about this immunity being something that would allow a president to engage in obvious criminal activity for personal profit or revenge, Trump has only ever been speaking of presidential ACTIONS related to the office and its duties.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, and-then said:

I'm reasonably sure that is the only period that is being discussed by Trump.  If presidents are suddenly left in legal jeopardy for decisions they make AS PRESIDENT that might harm individuals without intending to do so, what president could ever make a decision without it being second-guessed and him being prosecuted after he left office?  Despite the nonsense being discussed about this immunity being something that would allow a president to engage in obvious criminal activity for personal profit or revenge, Trump has only ever been speaking of presidential ACTIONS related to the office and its duties.

Yea, because there isn't a difference at all.  Authorizing a drone strike that all intelligence available says is a high value target that ends up being a civlilain, or removing classified information, storing it illegally, and refusing to return it.  Yea, same thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pretty much this is only coming up because dolt45 is looking for a loophole back door to get away with crimes,

I actually expected to see civil suits against him for his withholding information and dissing safety precautions during covid he cost lives doesn't care and could say it was in the country best interest yet he did it for his best interests,

Yep best answer...

On 3/1/2024 at 11:15 AM, Essan said:

No.

Presidents, prime ministers and, indeed, all senior politicians should be held more accountable to the law. 

They are the people who are trusted with running the country and setting the laws.  If they don't abide by them, why should anyone else?

Lead by example or don't lead at all.

BOM set and continues set a horrible example.

Edited by the13bats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say, while in office, yes. After leaving office, no. Any crime commited while in office should be charged after the January transition of power.

While in office, the check is impeachment. Something so bad as to require being arrested and tried, should be bad enough for the Senate to convict.

IMHO, Trump has no immunity on this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Trump even being mentioned in this topic.  He is the victim!

What about all the crimes the Biden crime family has committed.  There's something to be said for North Korea's three generations of punishment when the Bad'uns are.im the scope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.