SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JBTFD who wrote (304571)3/1/2011 9:43:12 AM
From: ValueproRead Replies (2) of 306849
 
"What I don't understand is your exempting of past presidents. If it can be shown that they broke the law they shouldn't get a free pass."

For the third time now, and I'll try to be simple about it...

1) While the constitution requires a president to uphold laws, failure to do so was never considered, and is therefore not defined as a crime. Hence no penalty.

2) "Ex post facto" law says a person can not be punished for crimes under law that did not exists at the time of the action or inaction defined later defined as a crime.

3) The only penalty I would look for is for the failure of any president to uphold the law AFTER failure to do so has been defined as a crime.

Historians can expose prior such failures of presidents, but there is no other option, legally speaking. If I'm wrong, what would you propose?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News