DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**iroxmxinau** · 10-22-2005, 12:52 AM

Some interesting analysis, with thanks to those brainy guys who love the GOP:

TREASONGATE:

A Sitting President Can Be Indicted

(And so can a sitting Vice President.)

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

For a change, I'm not going to give you my own analysis. Instead, I'm going to quote arch conservative lawyer, the legal sidekick of Rush Limbaugh, the infamous Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation, aka "The Great One". Let's have a look at what he has to say, and what Rush totally agreed with, regarding the indictment of a sitting President (albeit another President, another time).

This comes from an official Landmark Legal brief ( http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9694/Rush.html ):

LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION

Can A President Be Indicted While in Office, Or Must He First Be Impeached?

BY MARK R. LEVIN AND ARTHUR F. FERGENSON
January 23, 1998

Can a president be indicted while in office, or must he first be impeached?

Recent events in Washington have renewed this once obscure debate.

Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states, in part:
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."There are two different concepts expressed in this part of the Constitution. First, impeachment is a political response, and the violations do not have to be specifically enumerated in a criminal code. It allows the public, through its representatives in Congress, to act on its revulsion with a president.

Some point to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and claim it requires criminal wrongdoing as a condition of impeachment. That section states, "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction, of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

No less than the late constitutional expert Raoul Berger, who was one of the nation's leading scholars on the subject of impeachment, among others, wrote that treason, bribery, "'high crimes and misdemeanors' appear to be words of art confined to impeachments, without roots in the ordinary criminal law and which had no relation to whether an indictment would lie in the particular circumstances."

Second, the language in Article I, Section 3 makes clear that impeachment is not an exclusive remedy. A president is still subject to criminal prosecution, if warranted. He can be impeached and removed from office, but this is a limited remedy. Given this limitation, the Founding Fathers wanted to make clear that impeachment would not immunize a president and bar subsequent criminal prosecution. Obviously, this concern only arises in cases where impeachment precedes criminal prosecution. Therefore, if criminal prosecution precedes impeachment, it is not an issue.

10-22-2005, 12:52 AM	#10
iroxmxinau Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 404 Senior Member	*Some interesting analysis, with thanks to those brainy guys who love the GOP:* *TREASONGATE:* A Sitting President Can Be Indicted (And so can a sitting Vice President.) http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/ For a change, I'm not going to give you my own analysis. Instead, I'm going to quote arch conservative lawyer, the legal sidekick of Rush Limbaugh, the infamous Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation, aka "The Great One". Let's have a look at what he has to say, and what Rush totally agreed with, regarding the indictment of a sitting President (albeit another President, another time). This comes from an official Landmark Legal brief ( http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9694/Rush.html ): LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION Can A President Be Indicted While in Office, Or Must He First Be Impeached? BY MARK R. LEVIN AND ARTHUR F. FERGENSON January 23, 1998 Can a president be indicted while in office, or must he first be impeached? Recent events in Washington have renewed this once obscure debate. Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states, in part: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."There are two different concepts expressed in this part of the Constitution. First, impeachment is a political response, and the violations do not have to be specifically enumerated in a criminal code. It allows the public, through its representatives in Congress, to act on its revulsion with a president. Some point to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and claim it requires criminal wrongdoing as a condition of impeachment. That section states, "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction, of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." No less than the late constitutional expert Raoul Berger, who was one of the nation's leading scholars on the subject of impeachment, among others, wrote that treason, bribery, "'high crimes and misdemeanors' appear to be words of art confined to impeachments, without roots in the ordinary criminal law and which had no relation to whether an indictment would lie in the particular circumstances." Second, the language in Article I, Section 3 makes clear that impeachment is not an exclusive remedy. A president is still subject to criminal prosecution, if warranted. He can be impeached and removed from office, but this is a limited remedy. Given this limitation, the Founding Fathers wanted to make clear that impeachment would not immunize a president and bar subsequent criminal prosecution. Obviously, this concern only arises in cases where impeachment precedes criminal prosecution. Therefore, if criminal prosecution precedes impeachment, it is not an issue.
	Quote