184

tl;dr: Arpaio was sentenced for violating a court order, which ordered him to stop violating the law. In this case, a presidential pardon takes away any recourse the judiciary has, thus circumventing the separation of powers and thus the rule of law. Few people claim that the pardon was illegal. What people mean by "rule of law" in this case is ...


113

Putin is de facto leader for more than 3 mandates (not much big difference from "for life") and I do not remember to be illustrated so harshly Consider revisiting your news sources somewhat. There was an international outcry at the time (in the West anyway), because he had the constitution changed to stay in power. Plus, whataboutism is a logical fallacy. ...


111

One of the main reasons was that the President - even now, never mind in Founding Fathers' time - is not the "head of government", the way Prime Ministers are in Parliamentary systems. The President is the head of Executive Branch of government, and in Founders' time that branch had fairly little power, therefore there was far less possible impact and ...


101

According to CNN, the emails were released by Donald Trump Jr. shortly before they were going to be published by the New York Times. From this article, we read: Trump Jr. tweeted that he was releasing the emails to be "totally transparent," but his release came moments before The New York Times published the content of the emails. The only options for ...


101

I can't speak for Rebecca's judgement in interpreting those words of Trump, but for instance a NYT article says: “Our people want to return to work,” Mr. Trump declared Tuesday on Twitter, adding, “THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM!” In essence, he was raising an issue that economists have long grappled with: How can a society assess ...


99

Legally, nothing prevents the U.S. president from performing ordinary activities. In practice, U.S. presidents try to avoid doing things (like driving) that make it harder for the Secret Service to protect the president. But if a president insists on doing something (such as riding a horse on a remote ranch, or cutting brush with a chainsaw on a large ranch)...


85

The reason for the founding fathers to do this was in part because they viewed the President as supposed to be an elder statesman who had shown through his career to be reliable in his values and not prone to the changing whims of the public, as well as effectively lead the nation and represent a generally unifying acceptance of a large majority of people ...


84

I'm not terribly sure that leaving outliers aside (both Trump and Macron are such) there's that much of a difference, historically, between the major European countries and the US. The Economist ran a short article on this in 2017, the best part of which is this graph: They observe than in all four countries the gap (between the median population age and ...


83

In a word: no. The President cannot just order someone to prison. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure except on probable cause of a crime being committed. The Fifth Amendment requires felony charges to be brought by a Grand Jury. The Sixth Amendment requires trial by jury for criminal cases.


81

I don't think "pre-impeach" is the right word because Congress has the power to impeach the VP or any other "civil officer", not just the president. According to article 2 of the constitution, as stated by Wikipedia: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and ...


75

To express that he cares and is taking the emergency seriously. To see what the area's needs are first hand. Cynically, to garner votes. During Katrina, George W. Bush was criticized for not going sooner. During Sandy, Democrat Barack Obama was effusively praised by Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie for Obama's show of support. It is ...


74

It's a good idea if you think the President should have much stronger powers than other branches, and that legislative compromise should be eliminated, as part of the system, altogether. As much as we hate the way legislation is bundled, it is, quite often the way to work compromise into the system. I don't vote for measure "A", but I want measure "B", ...


73

It is possible to reject a pardon. Referring to United States v. Wilson: There is nothing peculiar in a pardon which ought to distinguish it in this respect from other facts; no legal principle known to the court will sustain such a distinction. A pardon is a deed to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without ...


73

The short answer is no. The longer answer is that this framing isn't particularly helpful. There are a number of overlapping factors that prevent the president from legally suspending elections like some tinpot dictator. In particular Article II Section I of the Constitution and the 12th, 20th, 22nd, and 25th amendments which combine to define ...


69

He is not obliged to hold them at all, much less answer questions, or any specific questions. The only requirement of addressing anyone is the state of the union, and that is not required to be a speech, it could be written. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union... Article II, Section 3, US Constitution ...


68

Isn't every conversation with the US president a form of quid-pro-quo? Possibly, though it depends on what's in the quid pro quo if it matters. In the case of withholding congressional approved security assistance until the Ukrainians investigate a domestic political opponent, there are two things wrong: It's not up to the president to withhold the ...


67

No. The power of a Presidential Pardon comes from the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) and there is no provision for undoing it.


67

The question is theoretical. But there's no need to theorize. There's at least one case of a convict successfully rejecting a presidential pardon. The Supreme Court ruled on this case in 1833, saying a pardon is "not completed without acceptance". The case is touched upon in a previous answer to this post. Here are excerpts from an article describing the ...


65

'Why' questions are inherently difficult, often de-evolving to opinion-mongering. Unless someone in the White House tells us their reasoning explicitly, we could only guess. However, what we can say is that the White House and its supporters have consistently held that the Bidens and Burisma were involved in some unspecified form of corruption in the ...


62

An UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Usually the name is not applied when somebody sees a light prop plane overhead and cannot recognize the specific model or registration letters, but what the name means is that the observer cannot identify it. When a Navy pilot sees something he or she cannot identify, and when air traffic control has no clue either, ...


62

If I understand correctly, in the United States, charges are currently being brought against President Trump You understand incorrectly. It has been asserted that President Trump may have done those things that you mentioned, but he has not yet been charged with anything. There is no criminal proceeding currently taking place in Congress that will result ...


61

Is there potential for the President of the United States to commit insider trading? Certainly. The President has access to all kinds of material information that is non-public, either because it’s classified, confidential, or not yet cleared for public consumption. Some examples of material information that the President could have access to before the ...


60

The State of the Union speech is purely a tradition. There are no laws regarding it, although there may be rules within each house of Congress that address it. The only requirement is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 3): [The president] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to ...


60

It is absolutely correct that a president cannot just point at someone and say, "Jail that person!" and have it happen automatically. What a president can do is go to the Attorney General and say, "Investigate, indict, and prosecute that person." Then the Justice Department has to attempt those things, subject of course to court and jury approval. I've ...


59

If Congress has the 2/3 votes to override a Presidential veto, they can pass any budget they want with zero consideration for what the President thinks. Ever since the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President no longer has the authority to refuse spending Congressionally allocated funds. Therefore Republicans are free to end the shutdown by agreeing ...


58

There's several reasons Courtesy to a colleague - Generally speaking, former Presidents generally refrain from current political commentary. This tends to extend to politics in general, lest they step on their successor's toes in any way Bush, however, in his limited public appearances has stayed mute about his successor, maintaining a custom among former ...


58

The short answer is yes. It does matter where the information comes from There is a legal difference because a campaign cannot take something of value from a foreign agent. But that is off topic. It makes a big difference politically because of the ongoing investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government. As such it fits a ...


58

A president has the power, under the general terms of Article 2, to instruct the various federal agencies how to act, and how to spend the money that they already have. Any such order is then subject to scrutiny by Congress and the SCOTUS. The ability of the President to instruct a private company is limited. In 1952, with a steel strike threatened, ...


56

Yep, presidents have been called for jury duty before. Of course they never serve on a jury. 'Running a country' and all is a good excuse. Perhaps slightly more comically is that even SCOTUS gets called for jury duty, but they also have a good excuse. Trump though shouldn't be at risk of jury duty during his presidency because he just recently served.


55

In addition to the problem of veto-proof majorities the others have noted, there's another factor: he can always choose to selectively not enforce or otherwise comply with the portions of the law he deems unconstitutional. Thus he can keep the portions of the law he says he does agree with, while ignoring the allegedly unconstitutional parts (he is obliged ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible