It is hard to conceive that the President of the United States should be protected from indictment in the manner of an absolute monarch from the Old World.
That is an totally incorrect read of the situation. An absolute monarch in the Old World had no accountability to anything. This is certainly NOT the case with an American President.
An American President is just as accountable to the law as any other citizen; it simply that for the sake of maintaining checks and balances, the PROCEDURE by which they are held accountable is modified. The citizen can be arrested, indicted, and tried; the President must first be impeached and removed from office. All that’s different is that there’s an extra step in the process.
Yet it is seriously advanced that a sitting US President cannot be indicted while in office and, further, that only Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution is relevant to his legal status as a citizen of the Republic. In the immortal words of Donald Duck: “Phooey!”
If thats your opinion, that’s your opinion. It is not the opinion of the best legal scholars, as I explained in another response, including one Cass Sundstein, who hates Trump like no other human does. Sundstein also references Alexander Hamilton on this matter.
If you want to end up with a dictatorship, make the President indictable. I personally would consider that a bad move.
I hate to generalize, but this sort of shortsightedness is a necessary component of most liberal…
Greg Fish raised the fact that the person who first advanced the concept that a sitting president could not be indicted…
One might just as well try to argue the President doesn’t have to pay tax. Of course he does. So, at once, the proposition that the President cannot be indicted leads to the conclusion that the President is obligated to obey some laws but is excluded from others.
Again, incorrect. See above. Same accountability to the law; all that’s different is that a step has been added.
Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution relates to whether the President should remain in office
Please refer to the linked article above, AND the Bloomberg article that is linked therein, written by Cass Sundstein.
The idea that a sitting President could be tactically bombarded by nuisance lawsuits and effectively derail his discharge of his office is a tail wagging the dog argument.
And yet, Professor Sundstein raises that precise objection.
Firstly, the courts make the determination whether a law suit has merit; they will continue to do so. Secondly, a President pre-occupied with law suits against him may step down temporarily from office under the 25th Amendment. Thirdly, and importantly, the notion that a President may evade legitimate legal action because he holds the office of the Presidency is itself a corruption of the law. It has never been a defence to a crime that the accused is the President; may it never be so.
Your “firstly” is an odd argument, because convincing a judge that a case has merit at first blush is not particularly difficult — that puts you immediately into discovery, which is time consuming, even if the case never goes to court; your “secondly” deprives the people of the individual that they chose to be their president (impeachment is the proper process for that) and denies the people of THEIR right to select who they choose as President (even if that person be a cad) and your “thirdly” is simply an incorrect understanding of the situation, as outlined above.
Hope that helps.