But that’s an extra step. What we want to know is, does he have the authority/status NOW, simply as POTUS to do so.
You pretty much have to make law to prevent a President from doing something, not give him permission. He can pretty much have the Attorney General argue that the Constitution gives him the right to do so, wheter you think it does or not. To address this point pecific laws have been made to limit his ability to do things like wage a war or tap an american citizens phone. Even then they still try to do these things and complain that congress is trying to “tie the President hands” and “put the american people at risk”.
If you are looking for authority/status, look to the Constitution because that is where he gets his authority/status unless the Congress or the Supreme Court says otherwise. Until the issue comes up and is addressed in one of those forums there can be no factual answer to the OP.
This is kind of the case in Wisconsin with open carry. Local ordinances no longer can forbid it because of a state firearms preemption law. There is no state law forbidding it or allowing it. The law is silent on it either way.
I’ve known officers to make disorderly conduct arrests on it, but it’s usually thrown out because the DC statute doesn’t fit the act of carrying a firearm openly secured in a holster.
So the president is free to steal a car or murder someone or engage in insider trading, because the constitution doesn’t prohibit him from doing it?
Not every action by a president is an official act. There are many things that the president is prohibited from doing simply because it is illegal.
Wouldn’t those fall under the definition of “high crimes & misdemeanors?”
The president is a civilian, that’s the whole point that people seem to miss. Our laws call for civilian oversite of the military. Civilian. Just because he is in the chain of command does not mean he is considered in the military. Neither is the Secretary of Defense of Secretary of the Army etc. They are civilians who are in charge of the military and in the chain of command. That’s why there is no rank ensignia for POTUS. A local example may be at your local police department. Many departments (at least here in NJ and mostly the bigger ones) may have a police chief and a director of police (or public safety). The director is not a police officer, can not carry a gun and has no police powers. However the director is in charge and the chief and all the officers answer to him. In reality the day to day workings of the department are handled by the chief and the director deals with budget and other long term issues.
Or have sex with an intern, or be involved in shady land deals or tap citizens phone, yada yada yada. Yes he can do these things and congress is free to impeach him and remove him from office if they can.
And none of those things (well, except maybe the third one) are listed in the constitution as things the president is specifically prohibited from doing.
Not necessarily. Nixon , and Clinton were both involved in pre-impeachment investigations without being charged with that very infamous phrase.
To charge a President with treason is a tough charge to make stick. Our President Bush has approved ( secretly ) wiretapping and spying through the Internet in the last year. Is it treasonous? Tough call. Is anyone accusing him of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Not yet. Probably won’t.
The POTUS does not hold the same status as the SECDEF or any other civiilian. It is not a mere matter of rank. The POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the military and he has the authority to fight in any position he chooses on the battlefield. No other mere civilian has this, and it is disingenuous to compare his status to them.
The POTUS can fight in any position on the battlefield he sees fit? Is there a cite for this?
Just as a captain can relieve his Helmsman the President can relieve his Captain. Hasn’t this been done before with Madison or the like? (my history is rusty)
But the captain and helmsmen are military ranks, and they are enlisted military personnel. The POTUS is a fully civilian rank.
I would imagine that the POTUS would need the appropriate licenses/to have passed the course/be accredited in order to take over the position - it’s unlikely that frontline soldiers are going to let George drive a tank, for example, unless he’s qualified to drive one. But yes, I assumed that, as the highest authority in the American armed forces, he could request and be given any position he chooses, as long as he’s qualified.
Whether or not he’d be ALLOWED to do that, I’m not sure. Currently over here, both Princes Harry and William are training at Sandhurst (our army officer training academy), and Will has expressed a desire to actually “lead his men” wherever they go - presumeably also into frontline action, if that’s required. As you might imagine, him being the heir to the throne, quite a few people in government and the royal entourage aren’t entirely happy about this. But then, Will isn’t our leader and has no legal power, as Bush does. This is all a hijack, but hey, this was my question, so I think i’ll decide to let me off, just this once.
I have a further question, actually - what about bladed weapons? I don’t know of the relevant laws at all as to blades in the US, so, could the Pres carry a knife on him? How about a full-size claymore? ( Yes, i’m aware he’s most likely not going to do so. But could he?)
Also, you stated that the President had the right to FIGHT. Madison COMMANDED the troops. Talk to any general and he’ll tell you that with all certainty there’s a hellova lot of difference between commanding troops and fighting with them, unless you’re a low level command officer.
Precisely who is in a position to tell him “no” ?
I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where he’s allowed to fight. Presumably the Senate/Supreme Court could step in and say that he can’t grab a rifle and fight. Or perhaps the general and say he can’t FIGHT, but he’ll allow him command. As I said, there’s a difference between commanding troops and fighting with them.
Also, the President isn’t a dictator that can get away with anything he wishes. He might get away with it for a while while all the bureaucracy is going through, but I doubt the U.S. government as a whole would allow him to grab a rifle and fight, especially as there isn’t any precidence for this, except for Madison who was guiding troops out when the British were sacking D.C., though I don’t think we’ll be seeing circumstances like that for a while.
Correct! The constitution gives the president very broad powers in order for him to execute the powers of his office without being dragged down by petty (or perhaps not so petty, lawsuits and charges). Did the president order a plane carrying terrorist shot down and it crashed into you house and killed your family. Too bad you can’t sue him personally, but if it wasn’t neccessary and he was just showing off Congress can impeach him. There is an infinite list of things that the president can do that would be nasty and impeachable, thus the term “high crimes and misdemeaners” and the process of impeachment. Local, state or even federal statues do not by themselves bind the president into doing or not doing what he feels like. What binds him is the checks and balances built into the Constitution between the three branchs of goverentment and his own values.
Wait. How can someone have a PO Box as a legal home address or place of residence? It’s technically not a physical entity! Shouldn’t the law distinguish between HOME address and MAILING address? If the police were to try and serve a warrant, it would be ludicrous for them to go to a post office and knock on a mailbox
:eek: