According to the constitution, Congress would be the check against the executive.
While there is structural defect in the absence of a government office that could prosecute the president for violations against the government, the DOJ policy is based on executive structure & separation of powers stipulated by the constitution & its interpretation by SCOTUS.
The executive branch enforces federal laws including by prosecution by authority the president supervises & delegates to the branch’s departments.
As supervisor of executive branch prosecutions & bearer of executive privileges (to ensure the branch’s (1) effective operation & (2) separation of powers from other branches), criminal prosecution of the (office of) president creates some conflicts.
The president would basically be both defendant & prosecutor in their own criminal trial.
They’d decide what evidence to present & withhold for & against them in their prosecution & defense.
While the president can delegate prosecutorial powers to other people, that delegation is revocable.
The president is charged to perform unique official duties no one else is authorized to perform.
In the DOJ’s estimation, criminal adjudication (in the judicial branch) with “protracted personal involvement of the president in trial proceedings” would impact operation of the executive branch in ways that challenge separation of powers.
under our constitutional plan as outlined in Article I, sec. 3, only the Congress by the formal process of impeachment, and not a court by any process should be accorded the power to interrupt the President or oust an incumbent
Impeachment by Congress is available in the constitution to open a convict to criminal prosecution (impeachment judgment clause).
Agreed, they are SUPPOSED to be the check, but the problem is, they aren’t.
The way it’s SUPPOSED to work is they impeach the President in the House, remove them in the Senate, then turn them over to the Justice department for criminal investigation and action.
If this process is actually going to work, what needs to happen is the Justice Department needs to run the investigation as part of the Judicial Branch, bring the evidence to the House for impeachment, the Senate for Conviction, then haul his ass off to prison.
That cannot happen as long as the Justice department is a function of the executive branch. They refuse to investigate their own sitting boss.
Placing the Justice Department under the Judicial Branch would work two fold:
First, it allows the Justice Department to actually investigate a sitting president, which they will not do currently.
Second, it would prevent the sort of actual political witch hunt that Clinton faced as it’s not Congress running the investigation, it’s the Justice Department.
According to the constitution, Congress would be the check against the executive.
While there is structural defect in the absence of a government office that could prosecute the president for violations against the government, the DOJ policy is based on executive structure & separation of powers stipulated by the constitution & its interpretation by SCOTUS.
The executive branch enforces federal laws including by prosecution by authority the president supervises & delegates to the branch’s departments. As supervisor of executive branch prosecutions & bearer of executive privileges (to ensure the branch’s (1) effective operation & (2) separation of powers from other branches), criminal prosecution of the (office of) president creates some conflicts. The president would basically be both defendant & prosecutor in their own criminal trial. They’d decide what evidence to present & withhold for & against them in their prosecution & defense. While the president can delegate prosecutorial powers to other people, that delegation is revocable.
The president is charged to perform unique official duties no one else is authorized to perform. In the DOJ’s estimation, criminal adjudication (in the judicial branch) with “protracted personal involvement of the president in trial proceedings” would impact operation of the executive branch in ways that challenge separation of powers.
Impeachment by Congress is available in the constitution to open a convict to criminal prosecution (impeachment judgment clause).
This was all explained in your document.
Agreed, they are SUPPOSED to be the check, but the problem is, they aren’t.
The way it’s SUPPOSED to work is they impeach the President in the House, remove them in the Senate, then turn them over to the Justice department for criminal investigation and action.
If this process is actually going to work, what needs to happen is the Justice Department needs to run the investigation as part of the Judicial Branch, bring the evidence to the House for impeachment, the Senate for Conviction, then haul his ass off to prison.
That cannot happen as long as the Justice department is a function of the executive branch. They refuse to investigate their own sitting boss.
Placing the Justice Department under the Judicial Branch would work two fold:
First, it allows the Justice Department to actually investigate a sitting president, which they will not do currently.
Second, it would prevent the sort of actual political witch hunt that Clinton faced as it’s not Congress running the investigation, it’s the Justice Department.