Presidential Acts not Prosecuted
My point to this article post is to say:
(a) US Presidents have acted illegally or unconstitutionally before
(b) none were ever brought to trial [or impeached] for their "official" actions
(c) IF, in 2024, our Supreme Court rules (which, IMHO, 6 to 3, they WILL) that a US President IS "above" the law - then we all MUST worry...
No, not about hypothetical unfair prosecution of a future President
Yes about American citizens being "legally" attacked by a sitting President
Begin Article
In 2024, many members of our US Supreme Court worried that a US President might be prosecuted for "official" acts performed while in office...
Trump v. United States: Can presidents get away with anything?
US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity
Here are a few things that Donald Trump’s lawyer says a president ought to be immune from prosecution for doing:
Glaude on Trump Immunity Case: 'This Is Really American Democracy in the Balance'
Is SCOTUS in on the Coup and Trying to End American Democracy?
The simple reality is that conservatives throughout modern history have viewed democracy with a jaundiced eye, and the Supreme Court’s Republican appointees are no exception...
US Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Says He Doesn't Think Presidents Should Be Immune From Prosecution
"Obviously, I don't think that" [they have immunity] - the Senate minority leader said.
'Side with the liberals': Experts predict surprise opponent to Trump's SCOTUS case
Dr. William L. Bainbridge;
Ph.D., former CEO & Distinguished Research Professor at School Match Institute - University of Dayton (2001-2018)Ph.D., former CEO & Distinguished Research Professor at School Match Institute - University of Dayton (2001-2018)
With the presidential immunity case the SCOTUS was given an iron-clad ruling from the DC circuit court. It did not need to hear this case at all.
If it believed that, for reasons of legitimacy, it needed to weigh in, the Court could have granted cert to this appeal on the narrow question of whether or not Donald Trump, in this particular case, could claim immunity.
Instead, the Court granted cert on the widest grounds possible, giving itself the scope to define presidential immunity for all time.
Kim Wehle talked about this choice last night and it is striking how the conservatives on this Court were eager for the chance to create precedent.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said during arguments.
But no one asked Gorsuch to write a rule for the ages.
The Court was given a narrow question to decide and the Court’s conservatives chose to widen the aperture as much as possible so that they could make right some cosmic wrongs they see in American law.
Which is exactly what conservatives used to complain that liberal judges did.
Here are some real cases where legal action could/should have been taken but were not
Unconstitutional Acts by US Presidents Who Were not Prosecuted
President Andrew Jackson (1831)
On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson. The Seminole Tribe declared the Indian Removal Act unlawful and refused to move west. The Creeks also refused to migrate and signed the treaty in 1832 to keep some of their lands, but the government reneged on that treaty...
Despite this ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the state of Georgia and President Andrew Jackson ignored the US Supreme Court's ruling and took steps to start the removal process. Once the Indian Removal Act was enacted, many Indigenous people began leaving and headed to the new Indian territory...
Why was the Trail of Tears unconstitutional?
The US Supreme Court held in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that the Indian Removal Act, which placed the Cherokee under the jurisdiction of Georgia violated the treaty between the Cherokee and the United States which recognized them as a sovereign nation not subject to the laws of a state.
President Abraham Lincoln (1861)
Determined to keep the Maryland lines open, on April 27 Lincoln issued an order to General Winfield Scott authorizing him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, at or near any military line between Philadelphia and Washington if the public safety required it.[1] Lincoln issued his order pursuant to the provision in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution stating that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it," generally called the suspension clause.
On May 25, federal troops arrested John Merryman in Cockeysville, Maryland, for recruiting, training, and leading a drill company for Confederate service. Merryman's lawyer promptly petitioned Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, sitting as a trial judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. This writ, sometimes called the Great Writ, is a judicial writ addressed to a jailer ordering him to come to court with his prisoner and explain why the prisoner is being held.
Following a hearing in the matter, Taney ordered delivery of a writ of habeas corpus to General George Cadwallader directing him to appear before Taney on May 28 with Merryman in tow. After Cadwallader refused service of the writ, Taney ruled on May 28 that the president did not have the power to suspend the writ, and Taney announced that he later would issue an opinion in support of his ruling.
Several days later, Taney issued his opinion.[2] Only Congress, he said, could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. He observed that the limitation on suspension of the writ appeared in Article I of the Constitution, dealing with legislative powers, not in Article II, which established executive power. He explored the history of the writ of habeas corpus under English law, showing that the House of Commons had limited and then abolished the royal power to suspend the writ, leaving suspension in legislative hands.
The Constitution, he said, embodied this English tradition. Article II, he asserted, gave the president very limited powers that were weakened further by the Bill of Rights. Finally, he cited eminent authority, noting that Chief Justice John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph Story, a luminary as both judge and scholar, had all acknowledged that the power to suspend was a congressional power.
Lincoln ignored Taney, and that was the end of the federal judiciary's involvement with the suspension of habeas corpus. Neither the Supreme Court nor the lower federal courts dealt with the issue again. The action now passed to the president and Congress.
You say: Don't worry; merely objecting to this unconstitutional act - in a newspaper editorial - is protected free speech under our First Amendment
You could say that = but you would be wrong
On September 13–14, 1861, ((exactly 47 years to the day)) Francis Scott Key's grandson, Frank Key Howard, was arrested by military authorities and taken to
Fort McHenry. Howard was a newspaper editor and grandson of Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner" after witnessing the British bombardment of Fort McHenry ((on September 14, 1814)) during the War of 1812...
Frank Key Howard (October 25, 1826 – May 29, 1872)[1] (also cited as Francis Key Howard)[2] [3] was an American newspaper editor and journalist. The grandson of Francis Scott Key and Revolutionary War colonel John Eager Howard , Howard was the editor of the Daily Exchange , a Baltimore newspaper sympathetic to the Confederacy.[4] Just after midnight on September 13, 1861, he was arrested without a warrant at his home by U.S. Major General Nathaniel Prentice Banks on the direct orders of General George B. McClellan enforcing the policy of President Abraham Lincoln .
The Mayor of Baltimore was also 'arrested' and imprisoned
On May 13, 1861, the Union army entered Baltimore, occupied the city, and declared martial law. Mayor Brown was arrested on September 12, 1861, at his home. He was imprisoned at Fort McHenry for one night, then transported to Fort Monroe in Hampton Roads, Virginia, and held for two weeks.
On May 13, 1861, the Union army entered Baltimore, occupied the city, and declared martial law . Mayor Brown was arrested on September 12, 1861, at his home.[5] He was imprisoned at Fort McHenry [3] for one night,[5] then transported to Fort Monroe in Hampton Roads, Virginia, and held for two weeks.[5] Afterwards he was moved to Fort Warren in Boston Harbor and held for fourteen months.[5] Brown was released on November 27, 1862. He returned to Baltimore and resumed his law practice.[5] Francis Key Howard , the grandson of Francis Scott Key , was also made a prisoner...
Please also read: The Star Spangled Banner almost did not wave !
On September 13th 1861, Francis Key Howard, the grandson of Francis Scott Key, was arrested for being an “active secessionist” - and imprisoned at Fort McHenry. 47 years earlier his grandfather wrote the Star Spangled Banner while a prisoner on a British warship bombarding Fort McHenry during the War of 1812.
“active secessionist” meant that, as a newspaper editor in Baltimore, Howard printed an editorial against Lincoln’s suspension of parts of our Constitution (like the Writ of Habeas Corpus)...
https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/star-spangled-banner-almost-did-wave-stephen-salgaller-1/
领英推荐
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1942)
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 9066, initiating a controversial World War II policy with lasting consequences for Japanese Americans. The document ordered the forced removal of resident "enemy aliens" from parts of the West vaguely identified as military areas...
My note: terms "military area" .and. "enemy aliens" were never strictly defined
My note: most Italian American and German Americans on our US East coast were NOT sent to camps <= IMHO, this could also be an impeachable offence
You say: Don't worry; our Supreme Court would not let such action stand
The US Supreme Court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision that the federal government had the power to arrest and intern Fred Korematsu under Presidential Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Which two arguments did the Supreme Court use to uphold the constitutionality of Korematsu's internment?
Which two arguments did the Supreme Court use to uphold the constitutionality of Korematsu's internment?
Due to the war, there was not enough time to hold trials or hearings before sending people to internment camps. The military had a legitimate need to protect against espionage and sabotage.
On Dec. 18, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the denial of civil liberties based on race and national origin was legal.
You could say that I'm a worry wort = no real German espionage ring existed
You could say that - but you would be wrong
33 member Duquesne Nazi spy ring prosecuted (1942)
On January 2, 1942, the 33 members of the Nazi spy ring headed by Duquesne were sentenced to serve a total of over 300 years in prison.
As a result of the massive investigation, the FBI—and America—entered the war with confidence that there was no major German espionage network hidden in U.S. society.?
I call BS on this !!!
Since there was one big confirmed spy ring, we must have imprisoned ALL US based German and Italian Americas for the duration of WW 2
President George W. Bush (2001 - 2006)
Overkill: Reforming the Legal Basis for the U.S. War on Terror
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Congress passed a use of force authorisation that successive presidents have used to expand military action ever further. As part of our series The Legacy of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” , we argue that Washington should enact a new statute that promotes transparency and narrows the war’s scope...
Constitutional cases resulting from the 9/11/2001 attacks
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
This Supreme Court case arose from the capture of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a bodyguard and chauffeur for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan was sent to Guantanamo Bay after being tried and convicted in a military tribunal that was established by the Department of Defense. Hamdan petitioned a U.S. court for a habeas writ, asserting that the military tribunal violated the Constitution and international law.
In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the President had no inherent constitutional authority to establish these military tribunals. It then held that Congress had at most authorized military commissions that complied with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the law of war. Because Hamdan’s trial had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, it, therefore, exceeded the President’s authority and was illegal.
ACLU v. NSA (2007)
After 9/11 the National Security Agency of the United States implemented an electronic surveillance program called the Terrorist Surveillance Program which enabled the agency to secretly track the phone calls and emails of millions of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.
In 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the U.S. government, alleging that the program was an overreach of executive power that violated, among other provisions, the First and Fourth Amendments. The trial court ruled in favor of the ACLU, agreeing that the program violated Americans’ constitutional rights. After this decision, President Bush announced that wiretapping warrants would be subject to approval by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) courts but that it remained within the executive’s power to continue the program without warrants if they so desired.
In 2007, the trial court ruling was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, who overturned it on the basis that the ACLU and other plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue because they could not say with certainty that they were surveilled as a result of the program. In 2008 the Supreme Court denied the request to review the decision without comment...
The [John Yoo] Torture Memos and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
In 2002, a series of memoranda were authored by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel outlining methods for keeping U.S. officials from being charged with war crimes and also providing rationales for different enhanced interrogation techniques to be used on prisoners from the War in Afghanistan.? Many saw the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” as a euphemism used to circumvent the use of the word torture and to distance the U.S. government’s actions from those proscribed by the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Although no one was ever prosecuted as a result of the use of these techniques, many of the techniques, most prominently waterboarding, would face intense scrutiny from both government officials and the public. In 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order prohibiting the use of waterboarding and several other enhanced interrogation techniques...
Philip Zelikow: OLC Interpretation would Allow Waterboarding of U.S. Citizens
What amendment did the USA Patriot Act of 2001 violate?
The organization says the act violates the Fourth Amendment
President George W. Bush indirectly suspended the writ of habeas corpus by signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The MCA removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas applications from people designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" in the Global War on Terrorism. The act also gave the president nearly unlimited authority to establish and run military commissions to try these people...
The main issue to be decided in Boumediene v. Bush was whether the MCA violated the Suspension Clause of Article I of the Constitution, which states: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” In a 5–4 ruling, the court held that the MCA did violate the Suspension Clause.
My comment: just like EO 9066 by FDR in 1942, "unlawful enemy combatants" .and. "war on terrorism" are NOT defined <= so US Citizens can be captured or killed without warrant - or any accountability by a US President
Hogwash, you say ???
You could say that - but you would be wrong
President Barack Obama (2009 - 2016)
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen...
Holder: We’ve Droned 4 Americans, 3 By Accident. Oops.
US cited controversial law in decision to kill American citizen by drone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki
The targeted killing of American citizens
Is it Legal for the U.S. to Kill a 16-year-old U.S. Citizen with a Drone?
Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority To Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen
My note: these cases / rulings are STILL "legal" and "Constitutional" = so a future President, like Donald Trump, could remove, arrest and imprison - or even kill - huge numbers of American citizens without charge; without trial, and, if in prison, hold them for the duration of the war on "terror" <= AKA forever and ever
Don't worry, you say... President Trump honors our US Constitution - and the rule of law
You could say that, but would again be wrong
President Donald Trump (2017 - 2021)
An Exit Survey of Trump’s Constitutional Misdeeds
Trump broke norms and coarsened American political culture, but the bulk of his constitutional abuses involved pen‐and‐phone policymaking of a?familiar sort.
A Federal Appeals Court Asserts Its Authority Over Trump’s Unconstitutional Profiteering
The court reinstated a lawsuit challenging Trump’s violation of the Constitution’s bar against receiving improper payments.