Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7[edit]

Above the Law vs Civil Servant[edit]

I recently read an article on CNN.com stating that if Donald Trump were not President of the United States, he would have been charged with multiple obstruction of justice offences. Why does being a sitting President make a difference? Is the President "above the law" or a "civil servant?" Can he (or she) commit a crime while in Office and get away with it? Or, would "justice" have to wait until he/she is no longer in office? 216.223.104.13 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are laws (rightly so) in place that prevents vexatious litigation against the President, so his political opponents could not use the courts to prevent him from doing his job for political reasons. I'm not saying has or has not committed the acts you say he has, I'm just saying imagine a world without laws that protect political leaders from vexatious litigation from their opponents. It could be using the courts as a political weapon. See, in the case of the U.S., see Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Mississippi v. Johnson and others, which establish that the President is immune from certain legal consequences based on some kinds of official actions they may take. THAT being said, the President can be charged with and forced to sit trial for crimes. The main reason why the President may or may not be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed before or during his time in office is politics: The decision whether to prosecute or not ANY crime is a political one; there are many cases (even outside of the president) where any particular crime is or is not prosecuted based on any number of factors, many of which have little to do with whether or not the crime was committed or whether or not there is legal justification for a trial. Even things as simple as drug possession offences or property crimes or rape, the decision how to prosecute, when to prosecute, and even what crimes to charge with and what sentences to seek are highly politicized for just ordinary people. For an office as intensely political as the President themselves, those considerations become paramount. --Jayron 32 13:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, see Clinton v. Jones, in which Paula Jones alleged that Bill Clinton had committed a tort against her while still governor of Arkansas. SCOTUS ruled that a sitting President may be sued for reasons preceding his actions as President — in other words, if you can sue a private citizen for something, you can sue that same person after he becomes president (assuming everything else is reasonable, e.g. the statute of limitations hasn't expired). This all goes to "above the law", but criminal charges are different; I can't point you to anything there, beyond what Jayron said. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]