21 U.S. states will not allow syrian refugees

[Jackalope]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I have no doubt SCOTUS would void any conviction based on the fact that no crime had been demonstrated. And more to the point, I have no doubt that the Congress, knowing that, would not dream of charging a President with a non-crime.

[popeyespappy]

My point was it doesn't have to be what most courts would consider a criminal offense. It doesn't have to be a law in the books.

That's not what the Constitution says. Reread the link I posted earlier in this thread.  The Constitution specifically names "high crimes and misdemeanors" as causes for impeachment -- and more to the point, no other causes.

In order to bring a charge, you have to, you know, have a charge. That's why Clinton was charged with perjury, rather than, say, being a Democrat. That's because perjury is on the books as being illegal.

I'm still waiting for WoG to enumerate any crime he thinks Obama should be charged with.  Seems to me like he cannot come up with one.

And that's why I posted what I did. The house is not subject to judicial review when impeaching the president or a sitting federal judge. They can call anything they want to a high crime. That doesn't mean they will get a conviction in the senate, but the senate doesn't impeach. They conduct the trial. Impeachment is only the process of bringing charges. In the case of the president and judges the house has complete control over this process. They don't need a law on the books. They can call anything they want a crime, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

[popeyespappy]

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.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

To quote Frankie Boyle:

"I suppose the USA is worried that refugees might get involved in mass shootings just to try to fit in"

[Jackalope]

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.

[popeyespappy]

It is an interesting and long standing question. Some consider it a major flaw in the constitution.

Would SCOTUS refuse to hear such a case? They might or might not, but as I said prior precedent involving impeachment of judges have pretty much given the final word to the senate. Plus it's not like SCOTUS doesn't get involved in the trial as the constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial. I wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS opted not to get involved in such a battle between the executive and legislative branches.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's not what the Constitution says. Reread the link I posted earlier in this thread.  The Constitution specifically names "high crimes and misdemeanors" as causes for impeachment -- and more to the point, no other causes.

In order to bring a charge, you have to, you know, have a charge. That's why Clinton was charged with perjury, rather than, say, being a Democrat. That's because perjury is on the books as being illegal.

I'm still waiting for WoG to enumerate any crime he thinks Obama should be charged with.  Seems to me like he cannot come up with one.

And that's why I posted what I did. The house is not subject to judicial review when impeaching the president or a sitting federal judge. They can call anything they want to a high crime. That doesn't mean they will get a conviction in the senate, but the senate doesn't impeach. They conduct the trial. Impeachment is only the process of bringing charges. In the case of the president and judges the house has complete control over this process. They don't need a law on the books. They can call anything they want a crime, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

As I said, I know this. But again, bringing charges means charging the official with "high crimes or misdemeanors". Certainly some obtuse representative can try to charge a President with chewing the wrong flavor of gum, but whether that firstly will carry any weight in the House, or secondly result in a conviction in the Senate, is so farfetched as to be impossible. And that's not to mention the SCOTUS's appellate function in those cases, which is implicit in its ability to adjudicate all appeals of convictions.

It follows that a crime, be it high or simply a misdemeanor, should be filed -- otherwise any "conviction won't be obtained, or if somehow obtained, won't pass review. And I'm still waiting for WoG's preferred charge.

[popeyespappy]

And that's why I posted what I did. The house is not subject to judicial review when impeaching the president or a sitting federal judge. They can call anything they want to a high crime. That doesn't mean they will get a conviction in the senate, but the senate doesn't impeach. They conduct the trial. Impeachment is only the process of bringing charges. In the case of the president and judges the house has complete control over this process. They don't need a law on the books. They can call anything they want a crime, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

As I said, I know this. But again, bringing charges means charging the official with "high crimes or misdemeanors". Certainly some obtuse representative can try to charge a President with chewing the wrong flavor of gum, but whether that firstly will carry any weight in the House, or secondly result in a conviction in the Senate, is so farfetched as to be impossible. And that's not to mention the SCOTUS's appellate function in those cases, which is implicit in its ability to adjudicate all appeals of convictions.

It follows that a crime, be it high or simply a misdemeanor, should be filed -- otherwise any "conviction won't be obtained, or if somehow obtained, won't pass review. And I'm still waiting for WoG's preferred charge.

As discussed with CD it isn't clear whether or not SCOTUS has an appellate function in such a case. In previous rulings on impeachments SCOTUS has been clear that the senate not the courts have the final word. But those rulings were about impeachments of judges not the president so they might take a different view in such a case.

As far as charges go what I hear most often is abuse of power related to executive orders on immigration. I've heard that from a number of both sitting and hopeful members of the house. BTW, both Reagan and HW Bush issued executive orders that made it easier for some groups of illegal immigrants to stay in the US. I can't seem to recall any republicans threatening to impeach them for it though...

[Jackalope]

As far as charges go what I hear most often is abuse of power related to executive orders on immigration. I've heard that from a number of both sitting and hopeful members of the house. BTW, both Reagan and HW Bush issued executive orders that made it easier for some groups of illegal immigrants to stay in the US. I can't seem to recall any republicans threatening to impeach them for it though...

There is undoubtedly some reason for that.