• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can A President Actually Be Impeached for Treason?

INRM

Philosopher
I
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
5,505
Well more accurately, could a President be convicted of treason? While it is clearly mentioned in the Constitution, the power the President has to conduct foreign relations is quite elaborate and I can't think of a circumstance where a President could actually be tried for Treason.
 
If he makes war against the United States, or assists those who do, he can be tried for treason if there are 2 witnesses against him or he admits it in court.

Do you think Obama is secretly helping al Qaida or something?
 
WildCat said:
If he makes war against the United States, or assists those who do, he can be tried for treason if there are 2 witnesses against him or he admits it in court.
Click to expand...

Sure, but he can also pardon himself. But a pardon doesn't get you out of impeachment.
 
You mean like intentionally selling guns to Mexican insurgents? Sounds like treason to me. ;)
 
INRM said:
Well more accurately, could a President be convicted of treason? While it is clearly mentioned in the Constitution, the power the President has to conduct foreign relations is quite elaborate and I can't think of a circumstance where a President could actually be tried for Treason.
Click to expand...

The president's role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces has nothing to do with treason which is a very strictly defined crime. The president can only be tried for treason the same way anyone else can be tried for treason: taking up arms against the U.S.

And yes, treason counts as a "high crime or misdemeanor" so if the president committed treason, he could be impeached and tried for it.
 
The only way I could see the President committing Treason is if, during a battle, he threw on the uniform of the enemy and started shooting our troops.

Anything else could be construed as a policy decision.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The only way I could see the President committing Treason is if, during a battle, he threw on the uniform of the enemy and started shooting our troops.

Anything else could be construed as a policy decision.
Click to expand...

I dunno.

I could see a president deciding to cast his loyalties with his native state if there were a conflict between that state and the federal government. If a civil war erupted and he fought for the state (or otherwise aided that state in taking arms against the U.S.), given that the case satisfied the evidence requirements, he could be found guilty of treason.
 
To clarify, are you talking about impeachment and removal from office, or about a criminal prosecution for treason?

If the former, I agree with JoeTheJuggler: treason is a "high crime or misdemeanor," so if Congress finds the President guilty of it, it's grounds for removal. I don't see any basis for making some Nixonian "if the President does it, it's not treason" argument.

If you're talking about the latter, then we get into issues of presidential immunity.
 
The House can impeach a president for a parking ticket if it has the votes. Impeachment is a matter of political reality, not rules or precedents.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of a "discussion" I had with a CT loon who insisted the President was above the law and could not be arrested for any crime whatsoever, state or federal. Literally, Obama could carjack someone, drive to the liquor store, punch out the clerk, down a 5th and no one could arrest him.
 
Loons like that were called "constitutional scholars" during the Clinton presidency. :D
 
Robrob said:
Reminds me of a "discussion" I had with a CT loon who insisted the President was above the law and could not be arrested for any crime whatsoever, state or federal. Literally, Obama could carjack someone, drive to the liquor store, punch out the clerk, down a 5th and no one could arrest him.
Click to expand...

wW6gy.jpg
 
If my memory for useless trivia hasn't failed me, both Presidents Grant and Pierce were arrested while in office. Grant for speeding in a buggy and Pierce for running over a woman with a horse.
 
Wild Cat

The question was a hypothetical


Ziggurat

Can the President actually pardon himself? Regardless, couldn't he pardon himself before charges were brought against him (Nixon was pardoned before charges were brought against him)


Dunstan

Either
 
INRM said:
Can the President actually pardon himself? Regardless, couldn't he pardon himself before charges were brought against him (Nixon was pardoned before charges were brought against him)
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. That's part of why impeachment is specifically exempted from pardons (ie, a pardon doesn't exempt anyone from impeachment).
 
Robrob said:
Reminds me of a "discussion" I had with a CT loon who insisted the President was above the law and could not be arrested for any crime whatsoever, state or federal. Literally, Obama could carjack someone, drive to the liquor store, punch out the clerk, down a 5th and no one could arrest him.
Click to expand...

That is probably true. I remember when Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (R-ID) was arrested for his airport restroom escapades and it came out that had he identified himself as a US Senator on official business, the cop would have been unable to detain him (he pled guilty on the spot hoping to save himself from the embarrassment, which of course didn't work). So I bet it's the case that the local cops couldn't arrest Obama but that's not the same thing as saying that he somehow has legal immunity from any charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom