X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:59:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Impeachment, with honor
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> Could a president be tried while still in office? Here's why
> I doubt it.
>
> First, as T himself notes, during Watergate Cox thought it would
> be legally impossible to indict a sitting president. That's why
> (again, as T notes) Nixon was an "unindicted co-conspirator."
>
> Congress critters DO, in fact, have a limited immunity from
> prosecution, as spelled out in Article 1 sec. 6. Daniel R.
> seemed not to know this, by the way! Attorney to be, huh?

I wouldn't make too much of this.  Actually they are protected
from arrest, not prosecution, and then only while in actual
"Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses," (I'm
not sure whether that means while actually in chambers or offices,
or 24 hours a day while Congress is in session), or while traveling
to or from the session.

I think the effect of this is to prevent someone from skewing a
vote by arresting members on trumped-up charges just before the
vote is supposed to take place, then springing them when the damage
is done.  You know, REAL hardball politics.

There's a funny story about a similar provision in North Carolina law.
A State Senator used the law to argue that he shouldn't have been given
a traffic ticket while on the way to give a speech.  He also got up on
a high horse, said that the rookie cop who had stopped him should be
fired, and in general made a stink.  This caused an even bigger stink
in reaction, and finally the Senator had to apologize.  Given the
scandal, the Republicans figured that here was their chance to unseat
this safe Democrat.  But the fellow they had chosen to run against him,
before all this happened, left quite a bit to be desired.  Apparently
his criminal record included one or two colorful sex offenses.  So the
party seized on the fact that the district address he had listed was a
vacant lot, and they said that unless he lived in a tree, he wasn't a
resident of the district.  After much wrangling, the Board of Elections
kicked him off the ballot and recognized a much safer candidate, who
lost anyway.  Ain't politics grand?

End of aside.

> Agnew claimed, though, that immunity from criminal proceedings
> is implied by the wording of the impeachment provision, in
> Article 1 sec.3. The clause says that the party *convicted*
> ... shall nevertheless be liable to indictment, and so forth.
> Agnew argued that this meant presidents (and vice presidents,
> of course!) are NOT so subject UNLESS impeached. The Justice
> Department replied that although the president IS immune,
> the VP is not.

This seems strange to me (well, Nixon's Justice Department, maybe
not so strange :-).  Do you have some details on their reasoning?

> There was some interesting difference of opinion between
> St. Clair & Co, and John Doar (head of the Special Committee)
> about the implications of debates between George Mason and
> Madison, revolving around the significance of rejected wording
> ultimately replaced, in a kind of compromise, by the
> "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause. Shall I type it in?

Please do.

Best,
Peter

> Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU