Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It was not out of thin air. There's a reason why the impeachment process is in the Constitution -- and why it's perfectly normal for countries to have Parliamental Immunity and processes quite similar to the US impeachment for government ministers.


We have legislative immunity called the speech and debate clause. It doesn't shield lawmakers from other crimes, nor should it, and it certainly doesn't imply some sort of expansive executive immunity.

The founders were rebelling agaisnt an untouchable executive, remember?


If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such rather than leaving it to interpretation.


> If the founders thought it was so important the President not have immunity from all crimes they would have written it such

They did; by writing in explicit immunities for some constitutional officers for certain activities, they implicitly rejected other immunities for those and other constitutional officers, by the legal principle “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.


That the opposite of how laws work..


Opposite of common law, but exactly how the Constitution works.


Well if the constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right it can’t just appear out of nowhere? At this point it’s about the “spirit” of the constitution not what is in the document itself since there is no mention of presidential immunity.

On the other hand it does grant the members of congress immunity under certain circumstances so it’s unlikely they just forgot about the president when writing it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: