This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
That’s great, I’ll be sure to keep that in mind next time I time travel to the year 1788 for a political discussion.
i’m just trying to help you understand the bigger picture. you don’t have to get smarmy about it.
You’re giving me the same line that always gets trotted out to defend historical bullshit. I understand the argument, I’ve heard it before, and I don’t buy it. In the modern day (where we live and are conversing) the constitution has a history of blatant human rights violations. We should recognize and acknowledge that, not excuse it for being “from a different time.”
Some of us can do both, you don’t need to get aggressive just because you can’t.
i’m guessing altheahunter is a grateful dead reference. that’s awesome. i’m an old deadhead too. as one to another, you can do better as a human being. the music is supposed to help teach a greater understanding.
As I said, I understand just fine. I’m just not willing to hand-wave away the unforgivable parts of our original constitution just so we can all feel warm and fuzzy about it.
yet here you are, trying to feel warm and fuzzy about your idealistic moral high ground.
I think I’ve been quite the opposite of warm and fuzzy about it…
it’s just that, if you vilify everyone from the past for not living up to your modern standards, then how do the people just getting here learn from history? it can all be dismissed because they all had it wrong.