Ed Huntress wrote:
"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:
Bush and Cheney would be in jail by now.

But then, so would a high percentage of the US presidents in
history.


Nixon, Reagan and Bush jr. for sure.
Ed Huntress and I had an extended conversation a while ago and his
take was
that it it's just bad to put Presidents in jail for stuff they do in
office.
He didn't really argue the merits, however. My point at the time
was that had Ford not Pardonned Nixon, Nixon might well have been
tried and convicted - thereby setting an example that his
successors would have heeded
regarding the law.

In the end, I concluded that both arguments have merit but having
tried the
former so often and gotten increasingly egrigious conduct, we ought
to have
a stab at the latter.
I think.
Maybe.


--
John R. Carroll



you'd think by the end (at least) of obama's term (if he makes it)
there'll be a vocal group falling all over themselves to put him in
jail huh? i wonder if this is the time enough people will agree
that it's better to put him (a black liberal rather than a white
conservative) in jail than not and make this thing happen. you know
he's going to do something bad, they all do/have, this time though
people will probably "get tough" on him (whereas in the past they
let it slide).

b.w.

Any way you slice it, if you jail a president for something he did in
office, whether he's out of office or not, you're going to create a
Constitutional crisis. I don't mean a disagreement. I mean a crisis.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress or the
courts any power over the president, except for the power of
impeachment. It's all a matter of case law and it's never been
significantly tested. The counterargument is that it would be a
violation of the separation of powers.

In fact, it can't be "tested." You can get a decision, but all it can
do it create a crisis.

A lesson, which is survivable, in itself.


--
John R. Carroll