Should a sitting president be shielded from prosecution? If so, does that create a precedent for unchecked authority? Let me know what you think.
You must log in or # to comment.
No, and it didn’t exist until last year.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
No. They should be advised and required to follow legal counsel like any other executives and their refusal to abide by that or purposefully surrounding themselves with legal yes men should open them up to direct prosecution and civil liabillity.
You know, like anyone anywhere else that has to do a job and follow the law
No. The United States does not have a king, emperor, or any other kind of monarch. As the Republicans are fond of saying: We are a republic. As a republic–specifically a democratic republic–no one person is above the law. No one in this country is so mighty, so powerful that he can usurp the rights of another or perform actions that would land another in prison.
We have not lived up to the promise of our republic. Those who seek to benefit from that flaw and those who look to exacerbate that flaw are enemies of liberty and should be treated as such.
You guys say that but you have parties celebrating your presidents being elected, they are like corinations and you have it every 4 years instead of once a lifetime.
deleted by creator
I think you sound like the “just asking questions” crowd.
That said, no, absolutely not. And, duh, of course it’s a precedent for authoritarianism.
What are your answers?
If you need someone outside of the law to function then your laws are inadequate.
Or they are adequate and you just don’t like them and are an elected authoritarian.
No.
No.
Why is this up for debate?
no.
next question.
Nope.
It’s like in Russia. Every politician in State Duma have impunity. It’s funny because if you k*ll some criminals from there, they would be just dead and then so-called impunity will not help them
What a dumb question.
