re: Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations

quote:

---

Maybe, but it's never been decided so neither you or I know.

---

Since you and I differ on the plain reading of the clause of the Constitution let's drop back and punt to good old intent.

If you think a moment you will see that you are arguing the intent of the framers was to remove the judicial branches check on the executive branch or at least make it subortinate to the legislative branch. Without the executive branch using their check and being effective at conviction the judicial branch's check on executive power evaporates. Being early and not willing to spend the day doing research to prove a negative I will make the argument that the framers never did this anywhere else in the Constitution and it would be an anathema to them.

[img]Biden had best hope that Trump's argument holds.[/img]

The question is what does the Constitution say and in ambiguity what should America best hope for. The limits on presidential immunity have never been really defined. Short sighted tinkering could produce a monarchy. If Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Carter all need to be sacrificed to prevent this then so be it. I don't expect that outcome nor do I think it is good for the country but it is still miles better than the alternative.