Which argument did president

Nixon , rejected arguments for blanket presidential immunity like the one here, but instead used a more functional balancing test taking into account the seriousness of the alleged criminality and the burden on the president of compliance. Federal courts should have jurisdiction to review a state subpoena or indictment, but only in the context of making sure there is reasonable suspicion, and balancing these competing interests, not to automatically block state prosecutors.

The problem is that in making this case, Consovoy inadvertently backed into another problem, one much bigger and more alarming. There are a lot of state [prosecutors] but there are a lot of federal U. Attorneys, too. In this answer, Consovoy revealed the precise reason state prosecutors must be able to investigate, subpoena, and even indict a sitting president.

The world is now witnessing a partisan, conflicted, and perhaps even criminal co-conspirator attorney general capture a Department of Justice to protect a sitting president. Somehow the alleged inauguration crimes that other federal prosecutors were investigating and the many other investigations that Robert Mueller spun off have gone dark or have stalled on marginal figures. Barr may be violating election laws by soliciting campaign support from foreign governments.

Garrett Epps: What pleases Trump has the force of the law. These actions may be more flagrant than those of past attorneys general. If he fails to recuse, he should be impeached. For now, district courts should do this job. Another safeguard would be to allow for a fast-track of any appeal directly to the Supreme Court. An indictment is probably necessary to prevent the statute of limitations from running out while a president is in office, especially for two terms. After serving one term as president between and , Adams was elected to the House of Representatives, in which he served until his death in During his tenure, he succeeded in repealing a rule that prevented any debate about slavery on the House floor.

The crew agreed, but then duped the slaves by sailing up the coast to New York, where they were taken into custody by the U.

A complicated series of trials ensued regarding the ownership and outcome of the ship and its human cargo. The capture of the Amistad occurred in an era in which debate over the institution of slavery, its legality within the United States and its role in the American economy became more intense. Although the federal government had ruled the slave trade between the U. The Navy captains who commandeered the Amistad off the coast of New York turned the ship in to authorities in Connecticut.

In Connecticut at this time, slavery was still technically legal, a fact that further complicated the case. Abolitionists filed a suit on behalf of the Africans against the captors for assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment. Spain, backed by a anti-piracy treaty with the U. After two district courts ruled in favor of the abolitionists, President Van Buren immediately instructed the U.

His case deflated the U. The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.

What argument did President Abraham Lincoln use against the secession of the Southern state? Feb 11, He had five main points, all of which are not based on Law, but his preferences. Explanation: The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union.