Schumer’s ‘No Kings Act’ Allows Congress, Not SCOTUS, to Determine ‘Whom Federal Criminal Laws May be Applied’
“No President or Vice President (former or sitting) would be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate the criminal laws of the United States.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schumer introduced his No Kings Act to eliminate immunity for presidents and vice presidents.
Who cares about the Constitution?
The Democrats used the Exceptions Clause under Article III to justify its actions.
The Democrats hate the Constitution. They hate the Supreme Court. SCOTUS ticked them off when they ruled that Trump was entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
The No Kings Act puts everything in the hands of Congress and the notorious left-leaning United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Democrats wrote (emphasis mine): “No President or Vice President (former or sitting) would be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate the criminal laws of the United States. The bill would clarify that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal laws may be applied.”
Oh. My. God. That’s not how this works.
Congress writes and passes laws.
The judicial branch determines whether laws are constitutional and how they are applied. It also interprets the actions of the legislative and executive branches.
The judicial branch keeps the two branches in check and ensures they don’t overstep their authority.
The No Kings Act allows only the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to handle any charges against a president and vice president.
The bill “would also create a presumption of constitutionality for the No Kings Act unless a party establishes its unconstitutionality with clear and convincing evidence.”
Chuckie didn’t read the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS did not give presidents and vice presidents blanket immunity.
The ruling had a specific and narrow ruling. The immunity only applies to official acts and when carrying out “core constitutional powers.” Emphasis mine:
We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient….
SCOTUS even said the president is not above the law (emphasis mine):
It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
The ruling is also important because the bill says the D.C. Court “correctly concluded in United States v. Trump that former presidents:
- do not possess absolute federal criminal immunity for any acts committed while in office
- may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office
- four-year service as Commander in Chief [does] not bestow on [a President] the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens
It also shows another reason why Schumer picked the D.C. Court. But one could call that ruling a blanket case because it eliminates pretty much everything.
The SCOTUS ruling is narrow and also not hyperbolic.
From what I could tell, the SCOTUS decision does not guarantee Trump will receive immunity.
The jump to assume as such shows how much much Trump has broken the Democrats.
Sad!
The bill won’t even make it to the floor in the House.
That doesn’t matter. The Democrats have become bolder, showing that they don’t care about the Constitution or the will of the people. They threw Biden off the ticket and pushed Kamala to the top.
Also, be careful what you wish for. They obviously haven’t learned anything after they removed the filibuster when confirming judges.
Trump has broken the Democrats so much that they don’t care about ruining the country. I mean, the Democrats have never cared, but they’re so brazen about it now.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
IMO it’s one of Steely Dan’s greatest songs…
🙂
F chuck schumer….
Schumer and d/prog seeking to overturn Marbury v Madison when the d/prog have relied upon judicial decisions to increase the power, scope and authority for the past 100+ years seems like an odd strategy. Cool though if they want to trade off the last 100+ years of every decision that increased Federal power. Lets start with Wickard.
And they already have the power to remove presidential immunity. They can impeach and convict the president if there’s cause. And democrats have clearly demonstrated they even know how to impeach without cause. So don’t know why Schumer is in such hysterics.
An attempt at Election year theatre to gin up artificial reasons for d/prog voters to be ‘excited’ about their ’24 campaign season.
Impeachment would not remove immunity from prosecution, if there is any in the first place. The two processes are completely separate. That’s why conviction by the senate doesn’t prevent prosecution; but nor does it enable it.
The effect of impeachment and conviction is outlined Art. I, sec. 3
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
“[B]ut the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” sure sounds like criminal ;prosecution would be possible to me. What do you think that means?
It means that conviction by the senate doesn’t preclude a prosecution that would otherwise be possible. It does not make possible prosecutions that would not be possible without it. Nor does acquittal in the senate, or failure to impeach by the house, preclude prosecution. They are completely separate processes, that may proceed concurrently or independently, as the relevant bodies may choose.
I’m not really sure I follow you. You claimed above that impeachment (now we’re talking impeachment and conviction in the senate, at least that was the import in my original comment ) would not render the president subject to prosecution. This is clearly wrong from the text, and nothing in the immunity decision presumes to say that an impeached and convicted president would retain his immunity as recognized in that case. Now it does appear that Schumer’s craziness is significantly broader, but my point, that Congress could remove immunity via impeachment and conviction is correct, in my opinion, unless you can point out where the Court held otherwise.
Yes. If he was immune before impeachment, then impeachment and removal would not affect that immunity. Likewise if he was not immune beforehand then he would not become immune. That’s what the clause is about; it makes clear that there’s no double jeopardy.
From the text of the constitution it is clearly correct. Impeachment does not affect prosecution at all, in either direction.
Nor does it say otherwise. In any case, the constitution speaks for itself. It provides that the impeachment process does not affect the prosecution process.
I enjoy reading the Constitution because it lays out legal concepts in plain, American English. That section is extremely clear that impeachment is not an end, but a beginning of the legal process. I would like to hear the logic from the one person who gave a thumbs down to your statement on this US law.
If President Trump had been impeached and convicted in the senate for the BS garbage brought by Smith, he absolutely would not have any immunity. Not sure why you’re challenging this Milhouse, but you’re wrong.
ArmyStrong:
No, it says no such thing. Impeachment is neither an end nor a beginning, nor even a middle. It is no part of the legal process whatsoever. It is a political process, which runs completely independently of any legal process that may or may not happen. That’s what the clause you’re referencing means.
That is not true at all. The constitution does not say this in any way.
The exact language is: “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” That is crystal clear, and anyone who thinks it means that indictment, etc., depend on impeachment and conviction simply does not understand plain English. It says clearly that they are independent processes, and therefore that conviction on impeachment does not preclude the legal process. Nor does it aid that process.
Well, as I note below, your view is not implausible, and my language above may be bit too strong (but what can you do? its comments section one can’t edit) But whether that language is simply clarifying that a president is subject to prosecution regardless of the impeachment or whether the act of impeaching and convicting is itself a constitutional process that operate to remove whatever immunity the constitutional framework had provided, I had believed remained a question. It may even be that a closer reading of the rationale underlying the decision may require rejection of that question.
Think that needs broken down a bit more with more words:
–The DOJ can try to indict a sitting or past President for official actions they took in office using his Article II authority. Any sane judge will dismiss those charges, citing immunity.
–The Legislature can impeach and try a sitting or past President for official actions they took in office using his Article II authority. If he’s not convicted, see above.
–The Legislature can impeach, try, and convict a sitting or past President for official actions he took in office using his Article II authority, *BUT* if they do not explicitly strip him of immunity, see above.
–And last, as previous but the Senate *does* strip the President/ex of his immunity after conviction, he can be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned like any other citizen.
That’s sane.
I don’t think Congress can strip him of his immunity for core official functions, even after it has impeached and convicted him for them.
Milhouse, in order to reach that conclusion, you would have to ignore the actual text of the Constitution. Which you Democrats have been trying since it was written.
To be fair to Milhouse, and notwithstanding my comments above, I understand his position. I think it could be consistent with the Court’s ruling to conclude that a president would be subject to prosecution at least as to the subject of an impeachment and conviction. But there is language in the Trump case that supports Milhouse’s view, although there is no direct holding to that effect.
SDN, not only are you a filthy slandering liar, you’re also the one who is ignoring the constitution’s text. You have probably never even read it, if you think it says such a thing. There is no text that supports your position. It very clearly says that the impeachment and criminal processes are independent, and therefore a conviction in the senate does not preclude prosecution.
This doesn’t try to override Marbury.
The constitution explicitly does give Congress authority over the supreme court’s appellate jurisdiction. As the linked article points out, “the Supreme Court possesses no appellate power in any case, unless conferred upon it by act of Congress.” The same Congress that grants it appellate jurisdiction in most cases can take it away in some.
There are limits to this. The Habeas Corpus clause is an exception to the jurisdiction clause; Congress can’t suspend Habeas except in specific circumstances, and it can’t use jurisdiction stripping to get around this. It can only prevent the Supreme Court from hearing habeas cases by providing an adequate substitute. Schumer’s bill cleverly does this by granting full jurisdiction to the DC Court of Appeals, which is in the Democrats’ hands. That nearly worked even in Boumediene, and only failed because the DC court was highly restricted too.
Ok Milhouse, you cracked the case. I was using hyperbole. Still that is the general thrust of Schumer here; disallowing SCOTUS to review whether X is Constitutional.
Yes, and it can do that. The constitution explicitly says so.
Should Chuckie Schumer somehow prevail in this attempt to subvert the Supreme Court I wonder if he will prosecute Obama for killing 4 US Citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan in drone attacks (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/kesha-rogers/four-us-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/)? After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder.
Somehow I don’t think so.
Is there a federal statute against murder? Every State has one, but I’m not sure that the feds do. If not, then this bill would not apply to Obama murdering American citizens.
Yes, there is. But the idea that a person’s citizenship is relevant is just bizarre. Murder does not depend on the victim’s citizenship, and neither does legitimate homicide, whether in war or in any other circumstances. There are no circumstances in which a victim’s passport controls whether killing him is murder or legitimate.
First of all, Schumer is not a prosecutor, and can’t prosecute anyone.
Second, killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not murder. The idea that an enemy soldier becomes immune from being shot on the battlefield, or in any other place he happens to be, just because he happens to hold a US passport is just beyond bizarre. In the 250 years that the USA has conducted wars, it has never ever refrained from killing an enemy just because of what passports he may hold, nor has it ever even taken an interest in the question, because it’s completely irrelevant. A US passport gives a person certain privileges, but immunity from military action is not one of them. If you take up arms against the USA you are liable to be killed.
And, of course, if you happen to be standing next to a legitimate target in wartime you are likely to be killed too, even if you’re both a US citizen and completely innocent. That is how war works, and has always worked, and will always work. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but it is justified and permitted by the laws of war. Innocent people may not be deliberately targeted, but there is no requirement to call off a strike just because they will be harmed, and it makes no difference what passports they may have.
The Communists’ goal has always been to jail their opponents – BAMN.
Exactly. Schumer read the decision and understood it. He just doesn’t care because he’s a shitbag commie.
“…to jail their opponents…”
or murder
lookit t’ Clintons
Ok.
This here is a jewel for the history books:
So basically, they are clearly and openly saying “we don’t give a sh*t if this is constitutional or not, we will try to pass it anyway.”
Imagine what they would do if that stands. Straight up dictator stuff
Hasn’t this been tried before? I want to say it was during W’s term when congress passed stuff about how the Gitmo trials were to be run. It also said that the SC was not involved and gave the SC a good laugh who took up the case anyways,
Yes, but look at those cases. They involved habeas, which is something Congress can’t generally suspend. And the decision striking down what Congress had done explicitly relied on the argument that the DC court’s jurisdiction was also heavily restricted, so the petitioners were left with no recourse at all. Had the DC court been given full jurisdiction the law would have been upheld. In this bill Schumer gives the DC court full jurisdiction, confident that it won’t use it to help Trump.
The real flaw in Schumer’s scheme is that Congress won’t pass this.
f they did pass this, think about what we could do to Dems, especially to several Dem criminal syndicates, Biden, Clinton Obama.
why not include congresscritters?
why not hang/guillotine them if treason proven (such as Chuckie as a member of CPUSA)?
1. Schumer is not and has never been a member of CPUSA.
2. Membership of CPUSA is not treason. In fact it’s constitutionally protected.
Yes, but it can do that. The constitution explicitly says so. Especially when, as in this case, it provides an alternative court that does have jurisdiction.
The real flaw in this scheme is that Congress won’t pass it.
What if SCOTUS determines the law is unconstitutional? Such a decision makes the bill a nullity ab initio, it grants no authority, enables no action.
If SCOTUS finds otherwise, Congress could put this language into any and every bill, and abrogate SCOTUS’ authority completely. Indeed, what would prevent Congress from making any and every bill immune from any judicial review at all?
This is complete insanity.
The constitution explicitly says Congress can do this. But if I understand current jurisprudence on the issue, at least in habeas cases Congress must provide an adequate alternative. That is why Schumer’s bill says the DC circuit will have appellate jurisdiction. That is an adequate means for review, so it can take such jurisdiction away from every other court, including the supreme court.
Schumer starting to make Schiff look like an amateur. He’s doing more damage to American institutions than most anyone. Yes, better to be weird than an authortarian extremist, which Schumer has become.
it has been said that Chuckie was a member of CPUSA in college during the Stalin years (and, perhaps, still is)
That is obvious bullshit. It is obviously impossible, so anyone who “says” it is an idiot, a liar, or both.
So no term limits AND judicial authority for congress?
No kings my ass.
No, it’s not claiming judicial authority. And the constitution explicitly gives it the authority to restrict the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, since it was the one that granted that jurisdiction in the first place.
No political lawfare, is the structural matter that immunity enforces. It’s not within the power of Congress to change. It used to be by gentlemen’s agreement but now needs to made explicit.
Unconstitutional as it violates Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7
“No President or Vice President (former or sitting)”
Democrats really luvz dems that ex post facto stuff. Since they got away with it in Lautenberg, now they write it into everything they file, like Peggy Hill adding Mrs. Dash into every meal she cooks.
No, it doesn’t. Whatever other objections exist, this one isn’t valid. Impeachment and criminal trial are two completely unrelated processes and neither depends on the other.
If Buttigieg is chosen as VP, will he propose a No Queens Act?
I laughed. LOL. I have to show this comment to my gay BFF.
Schumer imagines himself a Floundering Father.
It doesn’t matter what’s in the bill. Schumer knows that it is a) unconstitutional and b) never going to pass. He did it in order to raise money by saying he did it.
Everything the left does is about money. Remember that.
And power.
I wouldnt put it passed Johnson to bring it to the floor
Chuckie and The Dems (Great Name for a Rock Band) know damned well that the SCOTUS ruling does not grant Trump plenary powers to commit any crime he chooses. They are playing to the REALLY STOOPID Democrats that are too stoopid to read or comprehend what they read and rely on the DNC’s Alphabet Steno Pool aka The Mainstream Media, for their news and information.
Chuckie is pretending to be serious so that he can influence voters between now and the moment early voting commences. This is the most cynical crap we’ve seen from this crowd to date but I’m certain they will be able to top it between now and November 5th.
Maybe a great name for a Death Metal band. But not a rock band.
Because, based on what I’ve read so far, it wouldn’t have any real effect on anything. It doesn’t seem to change anything at all. Except to possibly open the door to a later Congress usurping some Executive power and then arresting the President for it.
Congress already exempts themselves from most regulations. This would be the same, but worse.
Maybe FJB should be arrested immediately, to set an example and show good faith by the Dems – no “old man with a poor memory” exclusion?
An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes. – Sun Tzu
The Congress cannot remove matters from the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Once the Congress removes appellate jurisdiction from the Court, it then transfers to Original Jurisdiction, meaning that any criminal act cited in the bill cannot go to the DC District Court and instead must go directly to SCOTUS.
That is how it will be struck down,
Yes, it can. The clause you quoted explicitly says so.
“In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
No, it doesn’t. Original jurisdiction is limited to “Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party”. Not even Congress can expand that jurisdiction, and certainly it can’t happen automatically. Marbury explicitly says that!
I’m searching for just the right word to describe Schumer. Perhaps, . . . weasel? Not sure. Working on it. Suggestions appreciated.
There aren’t many weasels in NYC, but lots of rats.
Here in Arizona, we have a serious problem with roof rats and bureauc rats. Solving this problem requires a lot of people getting up on a lot of roofs. Exactly how sloped is the average roof in Chuckie’s district?
He’s a senator, so he hasn’t got a “district”. But I live in his neighborhood, and sloped roofs are a rarity. I’ve walked past his building but never looked up to see what his roof looks like. I’m not sure it would even be visible from the ground. But I would guess it’s flat, like those of most apartment buildings in the area.
Doesn’t Schmuck Schumer possess a law degree? One presumes that he never read Marbury v. Madison, while in school.
No doubt this imbecile was too busy brushing up on the finer points of Mao’s “Little Red Book.”
What part of Marbury do you claim this contradicts? On the contrary, it’s Marbury that says Congress can neither expand nor contract the supreme court’s original jurisdiction. So the idea that stripping its appellate jurisdiction over a case automatically grants it original jurisdiction is a non-starter.
I want Trump to win and weaponize the doj and do to the dems what they’ve done to us.
He just needs to hire someone who will synergize with him instead of undercutting him.
So Schumer thinks all you should need is a Congressional majority to outlaw your opponents?
Fascist.
Nothing in his bill does that.
Just as soon as ya’all get done exposing all of the Clinton’s, Obama’s, and. Joe Biden’s and their crimes, then go after Trump. And definitely these previous six would be in Super Max. So Please, Git r done.
Not exactly on point. But same theme.
Don’t forget that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton stated that she was open to amending the First Amendment to restrict “hate speech.” The Constitution is not sacrosanct to these people. It is an impediment.
There’s nothing wrong with proposing amendments to the constitution. That’s in the constitution! So if you think proposing an amendment makes one an enemy of the constitution then you must be an enemy too!
Obviously such an amendment would have little chance of passing, because every person who believes in the freedom of speech would oppose it.
Supposing it did pass, that would not change anyone’s fundamental right to free speech, it would merely mean that the constitution no longer fully protected that right. It would mean that legislatures could then pass laws that infringe that right, and could get away with it — just like they do in every other country in the world. The USA is unique in that it’s the only country in the world that truly protects free speech, and if the amendment passed it would lost that status and become just like Canada or the UK or Israel, etc.
boy howdy, the proggies LOVE THEM some Communism.
“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
Oh. My. God. That’s not how this works.
Ummm, actually, as that previous, bolded sentence is written, it does.
Congress does write the laws, and it does determine to whom they apply. (Otherwise it couldn’t write laws that exempt Congress.)
As the laws currently stand, I really don’t even see how Schumer’s proposed bill would have any effect on things as they are. By definition, Congress can’t take away Constitutional Executive power, and that’s where the President’s immunity mostly lies. The rest of it lies in laws giving the President power or laws that govern him as a citizen. (So, for example, he could legally shoot an intruder in his bedroom in the White House. What? The USSS isn’t going to do it.)
So, a law saying “The President can’t legally do things that are against the law” is kinda moot, but also not a huge power move. He already can’t, assuming that law is constitutional and not otherwise prohibited.
The judicial branch determines … how they are applied.
No. Congress does that with the law itself. Or it should. That was the whole point of killing Chevron – the courts shouldn’t have to interpret how the law is applied. That’s Congress’ job. And if they don’t do it, then the courts can say “Tough noogies, Administrative State. You’ll have to go back to Congress to get this ‘interpreted’.” But they should NOT be saying, “Well, I think this and I believe that, so the law really says this.” SCOTUS, at least, is limited to saying “Well, that’s not right. It conflicts with this law and it conflicts with this part of the Constitution. Go away and try again.”
The bill “would also create a presumption of constitutionality for the No Kings Act unless a party establishes its unconstitutionality with clear and convincing evidence.”
So, the act establishes for itself a presumption of constitutionality that is already granted to every law, until someone shows the courts how it’s unconstitutional? LOL. This entire bill is nothing more than a way of looking like you’re doing something while also gaslighting the people into thinking things are not as they already are.
they are using the premise that the executive order uses to by-pass congress
thats what happens when you allow exceptions to sound common sense concepts like the different branches of government and their assigned powers
No, they’re not. Whatever you mean with this gibberish, it’s wrong.
look at how they used the
“promote the general welfare” clause (preamble) to say that its the governments job to make sure they hand out money to citizens
No legislation has relied on the preamble, which has no legal force.
The “general welfare” clause is in Article 1 section 8, granting Congress the power to impose taxes for, among other purposes, “to provide for the […] general Welfare of the United States”.
The thing is that this clause only authorizes taxes, not spending. Any spending must be authorized by some other clause.
The irony in all this is that this bill would put the entire Biden family in prison should it pass.
No, it wouldn’t. For one thing, no member except Joe has any immunity. And even Joe only has immunity for official acts; as far as I know none of his crimes were official acts, by any definition.
Is it just me…or do the rest of you have this overwhelming desire to nail and Gorilla glue Schumer’s always-sagging glasses to the bridge of his nose?