Executive privilege...

[Belsnickel]

(05-24-2019, 06:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I get the system, ours is almost the same, minus the fact that the chief executive has such broad powers to overrule and claim privileges. But right now Trump seems to bet on the fact that the executive branch - and hence, he himself - beats all others if need be. It kinda worked already with the legislative branch (their subpoenas fell flat already, and no congress police arrested anyone for that), it's now up to the courts, and can they actually execute their rulings? If you say so, I will believe you, but I wasn't so sure about that. After all, a president obviously cannot be indicted (which is a weird and to me dangerous rule to begin with).

You bring up some good points with regards to the judiciary enforcing its rulings and the indictment.

For the first, if Congress issues a subpoena, and it is ignored/defied by the executive, and then the courts also say the executive must comply and they defy that order, who does enforce the decision? The answer there is those two branches via impeachment (Chief Justice oversees the impeachment proceedings). High crimes and misdemeanors, which are grounds for impeachment, includes defying the these decisions: http://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Now, what if the executive doesn't leave office upon the decision by the Senate? Then we have a good ol' fashioned constitutional crisis on our hands.

As for the indictment issue, that is indeed a weird and dangerous rule, and one that has been written by the DoJ. It's not in the Constitution and it hasn't been tested in the courts. The DoJ rule could indeed be deemed erroneous if it were to hit the courts.