(November 18, 2015 at 2:02 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:(November 18, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Pretty sure that if a sitting president was convicted by the Senate for something that is in fact, not a statutory crime (say, wearing mismatched socks), we would have at minimum an issue for SCOTUS to decide, if not an outright constitutional crisis.
Congress might be *able* to do that, in terms of there being no prior restraint, but it would be recklessly endangering the fabric our system of government is built on.
No, I don't think I'm exaggerating.
Does SCOTUS have the power of Judicial review over a presidential impeachment? Our Constitution explicitly gives the sole power to impeach to the house and the sole power to try all house impeachments to the senate. Judicial precedent in several cases is the senate has the final word every time the question has come up.
I dunno, pop - as we've never had a sitting president actually convicted, I think it's not unreasonable to expect that there's room for case law to be made here in the event a president was actually convicted, particularly for legal absurdities. I'm just spitballin' here. It's uncharted legal territory, which is what makes it interesting to me.
Congress does indeed have the power to legislate what is or is not a crime, and that I would imagine is the power from which judicial precedent flows. However, Congress' power to do so is not without limit, and not without judicial review, and I would imagine that should the propriety of a presidental conviction be challenged, there would be no other venue with jurisdiction to settle the dispute. I would not expect SCOTUS to assert the authority to challenge it on it's own (nor do I think they possess it), the convicted president would have to initiate the action. Would SCOTUS refuse to grant cert in such a case? I think not.
