The President And Legal Boundaries: Can They Be Broken?

The question of whether a president can break the law has been a topic of debate and legal analysis, particularly in the context of presidential immunity and the potential for criminal prosecution. While the Supreme Court's rulings and actions have granted broad immunity to presidents, it is important to examine the checks and balances in place to hold them accountable. The discussion surrounding this topic has intensified with cases involving former President Donald Trump and the potential implications for future presidents.

Presidential immunity

The concept of presidential immunity is not a new one, and it has been a topic of debate for decades. During the Watergate scandal in 1973, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding that prosecuting a sitting president is unconstitutional. The OLC's argument stems from the idea that the president is the symbolic head of the nation, and criminal proceedings against them would hamstring the operation of the government. While these memorandums are not legally binding, they hold sway within the Department of Justice, influencing federal prosecutors.

The Supreme Court's recent rulings in cases like Trump v. United States and Clinton v. Jones have solidified presidential immunity, at least for official acts carried out during their term. The court's decision in the Trump case ensures that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted for their official acts, providing a level of immunity that extends beyond their time in office. This has sparked concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the impact on democratic values.

While the Supreme Court has granted broad immunity to presidents, it is important to note that there are still mechanisms in place to hold them accountable. These include impeachment, which can remove the president from office, and the 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of an incapacitated president. Additionally, investigations and evidence gathering can still take place during a president's term, with potential criminal charges being pursued after they leave office.

The debate surrounding presidential immunity highlights the delicate balance between the powers of the presidency and the need for accountability and checks on those powers. While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of broad immunity, the ongoing discussions and criticisms from legal scholars and politicians underscore the complexity and importance of this issue in the American political system.

Criminal prosecution

The criminal prosecution of a sitting president has been a topic of debate in the United States. While the U.S. Constitution provides for the removal of a president through impeachment and conviction, the question of criminal prosecution is more complex.

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued memorandums stating that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president. The OLC's argument is based on the idea that the president is the symbolic head of the nation, and criminal proceedings could hamper the functioning of the government. However, these memorandums are not legally binding outside of the Department of Justice.

Legal scholars and commentators have differing opinions on the matter. Some argue that a sitting president can be indicted but not put on trial, while others believe that prosecution can only start after a successful impeachment and conviction. There is also a suggestion that a "prosecutorial jury" of former U.S. attorneys appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents should be impaneled to decide on prosecuting a former president.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States granted presidents broad immunity from prosecution for "official acts," allowing them to escape criminal accountability for corrupt actions. This has been criticized as setting a dangerous precedent and putting the president above the law, potentially leading to a crisis if a president pursues political opponents.

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, it is important to note that Congress has powers of oversight, the purse, and lawmaking that can check even a rogue president. Additionally, the threat of criminal prosecution after leaving office remains a form of accountability.

Impeachment

The concept of impeachment is a check on the Executive and Judicial Branches, and it is a crucial tool for holding government officers accountable for violations of the law and abuses of power. Impeachment is a remedial process intended to "effectively 'maintain constitutional government' by removing individuals unfit for office". It is provided for in the constitutional laws of many countries, including the United States, Brazil, France, India, Ireland, the Philippines, Russia, and South Korea.

In the United States, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". The latter phrase refers to offenses against the government or the constitution, grave abuses of power, violations of the public trust, or other political crimes, even if not indictable criminal offenses. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. The validity of an impeachment trial is a political question that is nonjusticiable, meaning it is not reviewable by the courts. A committee of representatives, called "managers", act as prosecutors before the Senate.

The process of impeachment begins with the House of Representatives charging an official of the federal government by approving articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote. The articles of impeachment are then sent to the Senate, which sits as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. The Senate requires a two-thirds vote to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office.

Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The practice of impeachment originated in England and was later used by many of the American colonial and state governments.

In Latin America, which includes almost 40% of the world's presidential systems, ten presidents from seven countries were removed from office by impeachment or declarations of incapacity between 1978 and 2019. National legislations differ regarding the consequences and definition of impeachment, but the intent is nearly always to expeditiously vacate the office.

Presidential powers

The President of the United States has a variety of powers and duties, including:

• Making treaties with the approval of the Senate
• Vetoing and signing bills
• Representing the nation in talks with foreign countries
• Enforcing the laws that Congress passes
• Acting as Commander-in-Chief during a war
• Calling out troops to protect the nation against an attack
• Making suggestions about new laws
• Leading their political party
• Entertaining foreign guests
• Recognizing foreign countries
• Granting pardons
• Nominating Cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, and other high officials
• Appointing ambassadors
• Talking directly to the people about problems
• Representing the best interests of all the people

However, the President cannot:

• Make laws
• Declare war
• Decide how federal money will be spent
• Interpret laws
• Choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval

In recent years, there has been debate over whether a sitting president can be prosecuted for criminal acts. The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States granted presidents broad immunity from prosecution, allowing them to escape criminal accountability for acts committed while in office. This has been criticized as setting a dangerous precedent that puts the president above the law and poses a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law. However, others argue that the threat of criminal prosecution is an important incentive to keep presidents from breaking the law, and that other forms of accountability exist, such as impeachment, the 25th Amendment, and the power of Congress to oversee and check the actions of a rogue president.

Supreme Court rulings

The Supreme Court has granted former President Donald Trump immunity from prosecution for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office. The ruling, which was criticised by the ACLU, sets a precedent that presidents are above the law and cannot be held accountable for their actions. This decision has been described as granting the president the power of a monarch and giving future presidents a "blank check" to break the law without consequences.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Trump v. U.S. has significant implications for the future of the presidency. The court held that official acts cannot be used as evidence to support a crime committed by the president in their personal capacity, making it difficult to indict a president for private criminal acts. This ruling sets a standard that makes it challenging to hold any president criminally accountable.

While the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's immunity is a notable example of the court's influence on presidential accountability, there have been other instances where the court's rulings have impacted the interpretation of presidential powers. For example, in the late 1980s, during the Iran-Contra scandal, while several officials were charged, President Ronald Reagan faced no charges, though it was not due to presumed immunity.

Additionally, throughout US history, there have been instances where presidents have ignored Supreme Court decisions, rendering them unenforceable. For example, in 1832, President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, which upheld the Cherokee Nation's independence. Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision resulted in the forced migration of the Cherokee Nation, known as the Trail of Tears.

The Supreme Court's rulings on presidential powers and accountability are complex and evolving. While the court has granted immunity to presidents in certain instances, there are still checks and balances in place to constrain presidential power, including the power of Congress and the courts to enforce compliance with the law.

Frequently asked questions