Should U.S. Presidents Be Put On Trial Automatically When Their Term Ends?

News Type: Event — Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:57 AM EDT

politics, trial, office, politicians, sparta, spartans, public-officials, homoioi

Live Poll

The fearsome Spartan hoplite

Long ago, Sparta had a law that all Spartan government officials had to be put on criminal trial after their term(s) in office had ended. Loosely speaking, the United States holds a "trial" of sorts for all of its elected officials after each of their terms (however long they may last, be it one year or six or even more in some localities) in the form of elections. However, the greatest sanction that our trials by election can offer is that the official loses his or her job. In Sparta, when officials went on trial they were facing serious punishment. There was, many times, the option of the death sentence on the table. However, there was a far harsher penalty that could be meted out.

That penalty was demotion. The Spartans' entire social structure was predicated on the accumulation of honor which was reflected by rank. It started right out of the womb when the Spartan elders would inspect both male and female members of the homoioi and, if they found defect, they would leave the child in a rocky crevice to die of exposure. The homoioi was also called the "Spartiate" in English scholarship and it was defined as the upper class of Spartan society. The Spartiate men were trained harshly and lived to conduct hoplite warfare while the Spartiate women were trained in the domestic arts and inculcated to have as many children as possible with husbands who were forced to steal time under the cover of darkness and threat of punishment to impregnate them. This was likely the only pleasant thing in a Spartan male's life since Spartan women were widely recognized as the most beautiful women in the Mediterranean, which is to say the known world at the time. Proof of said fact is that Helen of Troy, one of the few women whose beauty inflamed men's jealousies into a war between nations, was of Spartan stock.

In a society that is defined by honor and reputation, a Spartan's military rank was for all intents and purposes a barometer of whether he was a success or a failure. Demotion was wielded as a cudgel to frighten the men into robot-like adherence to military discipline. Therefore, demotion was also the greatest threat to a Spartan public official that was facing trial by his peers to determine whether he had discharged the responsibilities of his office in a proper manner. The most severe form of demotion was exile which was like Hell on earth to a Spartan as being a homoioi was the only thing that he had ever known and he had sacrificed everything in his life including great amounts of pain and suffering to achieve such peerage.

The threat of such a trial kept Spartan government officials in line, to say the least. So I put the question to the readers: should American public office holders be subject to an automatic criminal trial that forces them to defend the actions taken while they occupied their office?

26 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

7.5

1.2

{"commentId":8201779,"authorDomain":"skylark246"}

Skye-768303

Too funny but should all public officials ( and corporate CEO's) be put on trial when their term ends?

{"commentId":8201779,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"skylark246"}

3 votes

#1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:38 AM EDT

{"commentId":8201874,"authorDomain":"independent42012"}

independent42012Deleted

{"commentId":8205656,"authorDomain":"mscyprah"}

Ms CYPRAH

Come on, Scott...that's a bit mean..LOL

However, they should all be subjected to a kind of end of term report where, just like an election, the public has to rate them on key items, say 20, giving 5 points for each. If they don't get at least 65% on leaving office then they should be hung, drawn and quartered (the delicious British way!), or sent to prison summarily for a time corresponding to the shortfall between their score and the 'pass' rate! :o)

The only problem with that could be that presidents 'play it safe' during terms or don't do anything to get low scores so we lose out on the great risk takers and personalities of the day. Ah well,. :o(

So maybe even if they are not penalised, all officials should be rated at the end of their term, by the recipients of their services or polices, so that everyone else can see how their performances were perceived

Nice article.

{"commentId":8205656,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"mscyprah"}

2 votes

#1.2 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":8213141,"authorDomain":"arlene-2"}

Arlene Tognetti

Corporate America would change it they had the fear of

being put on trial for any deceptions surrounding money matters,

investments, peoples' pensions and health care. Bernard Madoff

comes to mind......but and however,

President of the United States...the Constitution holds in what manner

we should deal with the Executive Branch.

my two cents worth!

good article!

Arlene in Seattle

{"commentId":8213141,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"arlene-2"}

1 vote

#1.3 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:19 PM EDT

{"commentId":8219197,"authorDomain":"frankblack"}

Frank Black

Only Republican Presidents should be put on trial when their term is up. It is a given that all Republican politicians are liars, thieves, cheaters and murderers.

{"commentId":8219197,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"frankblack"}

1 vote

#1.4 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:08 PM EDT

{"commentId":8202216,"authorDomain":"kelewanpug-politics"}

SpoxLogic

Interesting idea. However, here's the thing. Each politician can be demoted at the next election. Yet, it never happens. Similarly, the stockholders can fire a CEO at any time - yet it never happens.

The question is why none of these things happen?

{"commentId":8202216,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"kelewanpug-politics"}

1 vote

#2 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:18 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203415,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

Worker bees that don't take their responsibilities seriously?

{"commentId":8203415,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

3 votes

#2.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:36 AM EDT

{"commentId":8202272,"authorDomain":"skylark246"}

Skye-768303

The question is why none of these things happen?

Power and money?

{"commentId":8202272,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"skylark246"}

#3 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:22 AM EDT

{"commentId":8202399,"authorDomain":"kelewanpug-politics"}

SpoxLogic

Skye, that may be so. But, in the end all that power and money doesn't mean a thing if the voters don't go for you. So, I have to disagree.

Maybe the reason is apathy.

{"commentId":8202399,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"kelewanpug-politics"}

#3.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:33 AM EDT

{"commentId":8202759,"authorDomain":"dviking12"}

Sgt. Pepper

I wouldn't go as far as a criminal trail, but I definitely think a public inquiry would be a great tradition. The problem is that both the Democratic and Republican party would support it once one of their own has left office.

{"commentId":8202759,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"dviking12"}

3 votes

#4 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:57 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203255,"authorDomain":"kelewanpug-politics"}

SpoxLogic

In todays society, a criminal trial should be what is done if the person is suspected of violating laws. However, current events show jsut how hard that is to make happen. Everyone and their dogs all know Bush and Cheney and company broke several laws, yet, none need fear facing justice.

So, if I was a politician, and I knew that I could break the law without repercussions, I would do the same thing too.

BTW, the catch all defense for these folks is, "I was doing it to save precious American lives."

{"commentId":8203255,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"kelewanpug-politics"}

3 votes

#4.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:27 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203344,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

In todays society, a criminal trial should be what is done if the person is suspected of violating laws.

Everyone, and yes, I mean everyone breaks laws almost every day, do you really want to go there?

{"commentId":8203344,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

1 vote

#4.2 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:32 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204749,"authorDomain":"alkimija"}

alkimija

I agree with Sgt. Pepper. A public inquiry, or an independent agency which scrutinizes and reports upon the public officials actions, is a good idea.

{"commentId":8204749,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"alkimija"}

4 votes

#4.3 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:39 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204841,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

I think it is a good idea as well, the only issue being, how would they be appointed and monitored?

{"commentId":8204841,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

4 votes

#4.4 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:43 AM EDT

{"commentId":8221468,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

SpoxLogic:

BTW, the catch all defense for these folks is, "I was doing it to save precious American lives."

If you were going to have to rationalize breaking the law, wouldn't you use the biggest gun in your bag to defend it? LOL

{"commentId":8221468,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

1 vote

#4.5 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:46 AM EDT

{"commentId":8202980,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

Hmm ... Guilty until proven innocent.

Interesting twist.

{"commentId":8202980,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

#5 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:10 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203395,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

8 poll votes and only 3 votes for the article? LOL I thought it was more creative than that.

{"commentId":8203395,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

2 votes

#6 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:35 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203535,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

Well, the poll is inaccurate because "innocent until proven guilty" is not a constitutional right, so you have to throw out answer #2 and I think it is a bad premise to assume that because you have the possiblity (or probability) of being put on trial, that you will be more honest. All criminals know that if caught they will be put on trial, and yet they break the law regardless of the possible penalty.

Voting for the article means you agree with the article (or its premise), maybe 5/8 people who filled out the poll, didn't like the article, or its premise.

{"commentId":8203535,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

#6.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:43 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203807,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

MJV:

Isn't it a violation of due process to conclude that someone is going to be put on trial before they are even suspected of committing a crime?

{"commentId":8203807,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

1 vote

#6.2 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:56 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203937,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

The "legal" definition of due process:

DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'

My understanding(read opinion) of it is that no, it is not a violation of due process to conclude that someone will be put on trial, but to find them guilty without the benifit of said trial. The trial in itself is due process. I, however, am not a lawyer or a judge so my opinion of the definition is just that, my opinion.

{"commentId":8203937,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

#6.3 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:02 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204075,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

MJV:

According to Black's Law Dictionary, substantive due process is defined as "The doctrine that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require legislation to be fair and reasonable in content and to further a legitimate governmental objective." Is legislation putting someone on trial simply because they won an election to public office fair and reasonable legislation?

{"commentId":8204075,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

1 vote

#6.4 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204524,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

Is legislation putting someone on trial simply because they won an election to public office fair and reasonable legislation?

I think it would have to be legislated as a constitutional amendment (thereby ratified by the people). I don't think it would ever pass this litmus test.

Just for the record, I didn't fill out the poll (as it in my opinion is flawed) and I did not vote for the article (as again in my opinion the premise is flawed).

I'm not sure which side you think I am falling on here, but again for the record, I fall on the side that thinks this would be a stupid idea because at a minimum, who would take a job knowing they would be put on trial as soon as it was done.

{"commentId":8204524,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

#6.5 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:29 AM EDT

{"commentId":8221643,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

MJV:

Who would take the job knowing that they would go on trial after their term ended? My guess would be individuals that thought they could obtain enough power to avoid being tried or people that wanted to throw that govt's system to the wolves and start over. It takes all kinds.

{"commentId":8221643,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

1 vote

#6.6 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:41 AM EDT

{"commentId":8250422,"authorDomain":"DarthVSchw"}

DarthVSchw

Who exactly would conduct the trial? How would it be payed for? Would the person(s) conducting the trials be elected or appointed? Wouldn't the tribunal be eventually ineffective due to one side or another buying it off? Cause eventually the tribunal would become corrupt in my opinion.

{"commentId":8250422,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"DarthVSchw"}

1 vote

#6.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":8259142,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

DVS:

Interesting questions all. I imagine that the Supreme Court would have to try the President since I think they would be the only court that would have the proper jurisdiction to do so. I suspect it would be paid for through the federal budget as most other things in the govt are. As for the tribunal being bought, it's entirely possible that such a move could create a more corrupt govt in our country by opening up a channel between the executive and judiciary branch that would encourage cooperation and bribery.

{"commentId":8259142,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

1 vote

#6.8 - Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:02 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203794,"authorDomain":"jeremyfive"}

JJ-317453

In the case of Dubya, taxpayer money would be wasted on a trial. The evidence of his crime is blatant and staggering. Sentencing is long overdue.

{"commentId":8203794,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"jeremyfive"}

1 vote

#7 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:56 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204543,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

In the case of Dubya, taxpayer money would be wasted on a trial. The evidence of his crime is blatant and staggering. Sentencing is long overdue

See, now that is against the Due Process laws of this country. You can't sentence someone without a trial by their "peers".

{"commentId":8204543,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

#7.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:30 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203823,"authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

Holly-348328

A performance review would be great, and a poor performance review could result in the person being banned from politics. The problem is with who would conduct it. I don't know if I would trust the Supreme Court anymore, but that's probably the most logical option.

{"commentId":8203823,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

2 votes

#8 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:57 AM EDT

{"commentId":8203867,"authorDomain":"9sling"}

9slingDeleted

{"commentId":8204053,"authorDomain":"davebg8r"}

FL Independent

I would like to see something that makes elected officials more personally responsible for the acts they take, laws they make, while in office. Just not getting re-elected means little when they will just go into the private sector and be a consultant or lobbyist and make even more money, and therefore suffer no real consequences.

{"commentId":8204053,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"davebg8r"}

3 votes

#10 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:08 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204178,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

That was my main sticking point in considering a re-election some form of a trial.

{"commentId":8204178,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

2 votes

#10.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:13 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204623,"authorDomain":"vosm"}

MJV in Wisconsin

With the current "incumbent protection act" in place (I mean McCain/Feingold campain finance laws) you can't bring up anything "negative" about another candidate within a certain period before the election. This period is historically been from about the time the "normal" citizen starts paying attention to the candidates and elections, so basically you can't bring up the record of an incumbent when the most people are paying attention as it can be construed as "negative".

{"commentId":8204623,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vosm"}

#10.2 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:33 AM EDT

{"commentId":8204156,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}

Scott Isaacs

9sling:

That was off-topic. We're not getting into an Obama birth certificate argument here. This is a discussion about putting politicians on trial after they've served their terms in office, not before nor during.

{"commentId":8204156,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"isaacs"}

2 votes

#11 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:12 AM EDT

{"commentId":8205282,"authorDomain":"steve-olver"}

Steve Olver Sheridan Wyoming

Sounds good,however no scumbag ex president in the U.S. would or will not ever do a day in a cell,regardless of being convicted of crimes. Also,as evidenced by the Obama camp,its clear that criminal presidents, such as the scumbag Bush Administration will not face justice, no matter which laws,trials,or special prosecuters conclude. Write a law to deal with polititions and they will write another excluding themselves

{"commentId":8205282,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"steve-olver"}

#12 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":8205408,"authorDomain":"steve-olver"}

Steve Olver Sheridan Wyoming

Scott Issacs>> pulling out the law dictionary to bring a criminal politition to justice is like fighting a giant,wild forrest fire with a squirt gun. Open that dictionary and display it....thousands of twists,loopholes,explanations ,and spins wil be immediately used to favor the criminal(politition)

{"commentId":8205408,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"steve-olver"}

#13 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":8207117,"authorDomain":"jibade7"}

JoMan

No, only is you are guilty of war crimes and stealing the countries civil rights - lying to us.

Smiling at our faces and stabbing us in the back.

{"commentId":8207117,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"jibade7"}

#14 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":8207840,"authorDomain":"vaca50"}

Krankee

So Clinton gets a BJ and he has a special prosecutor. The Cheney/Rove Administration along with the Reagan Admin are some of the biggest crooks and liars in the last 30 years and these guys walk? Cheney is a crook, enriched his own company and all of his oil friends. He should be in prison.

{"commentId":8207840,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"vaca50"}

3 votes

#15 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:47 PM EDT

{"commentId":8210142,"authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

Holly-348328

Not to mention, Cheney is a horrible shot. Or is he?

{"commentId":8210142,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

1 vote

#15.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:14 PM EDT

{"commentId":8210026,"authorDomain":"jaker023"}

jaker023

if imprisionment is out of the question, then how about a forefiture of future benefits/pensions from obtaining the position? I believe that all ex-presidents get retirement income, home, etc. However, should they fail, then those benefits could be stripped.

{"commentId":8210026,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"jaker023"}

2 votes

#16 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":8210206,"authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

Holly-348328

Also, what about Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives? That's not free. I went to school with a kid whose dad was in the Secret Service and one of his tasks was to accompany former President Gerald Ford to play golf in Vail. Probably to keep him from falling into a hole or getting knocked over by a golf cart too.

{"commentId":8210206,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

2 votes

#16.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":8215446,"authorDomain":"jaker023"}

jaker023

i thought they recently stopped secret service protection b/c their lives are no longer a threat to national security?

{"commentId":8215446,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"jaker023"}

1 vote

#16.2 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":8212642,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}

gladbutterfly

Definitely a trial. Televised. With the 'accused' facing all of his accusers on simultaneous webcasts. The lightest sentence would be being dropped into a large vat of icewater, naked. Reality TV with a purpose!

{"commentId":8212642,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}

1 vote

#17 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:54 PM EDT

{"commentId":8216659,"authorDomain":"shub"}

Shub Tnediserp Remrof

It would fail simply because if the president played their cards right they could manipulate what judges where presiding, and don't forget ex-presidents have damn good lawyers.

{"commentId":8216659,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"shub"}

1 vote

#18 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:46 PM EDT

{"commentId":8216765,"authorDomain":"jolumidao"}

Grace-580101

No, to have a Spartan rule of law it has to be passed in Congress. It is against the Constitution and no one will be subjected to a criminal offense without due process. Those barbaric ancient way of life are no longer acceptable in a democratic form of government. Government must abolished torture as punishment.

{"commentId":8216765,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"jolumidao"}

1 vote

#19 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":8217447,"authorDomain":"shub"}

Shub Tnediserp Remrof

Government must abolished torture as punishment.

Wait is allowing the markets to fall a form of torture.

{"commentId":8217447,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"shub"}

1 vote

#19.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:30 PM EDT

{"commentId":8217735,"authorDomain":"jsquaredrev"}

jsquaredrev

No. This only applies to Governors of Illinois.

Q: What do thay call the new Federal prison in Illinois?
A: The Governor's mansion.

{"commentId":8217735,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"jsquaredrev"}

#20 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:43 PM EDT

{"commentId":8219342,"authorDomain":"shub"}

Shub Tnediserp Remrof

lol, but why don't they call it the Governor's cemetery instead. They all end up dying in there sooner or later.

{"commentId":8219342,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"shub"}

#20.1 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:18 PM EDT

{"commentId":8218505,"authorDomain":"kimberly-wells"}

3kyw4law

I would like to see the politicians held accountable while they are in office, not after they are out. What is the point in that?

I do like the idea of taking away their after office benefits that someone mentioned. That money alone could put a dent in our deficit.

{"commentId":8218505,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"kimberly-wells"}

#21 - Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:26 PM EDT

{"commentId":8478665,"authorDomain":"mysticfarm"}

kjpxxx

What Demotion to, "Demoted Ex-President"? that won't work, BUT,

"Demoted Ex President ,WITHOUT lifetime salrey benifit", might work.

{"commentId":8478665,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"mysticfarm"}

1 vote

#22 - Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:17 AM EDT

{"commentId":8479541,"authorDomain":"DarthVSchw"}

DarthVSchw

Hey there ya go! I'm all for that, especially if they are found to suck as president.

{"commentId":8479541,"threadId":"626192","contentId":"3023817","authorDomain":"DarthVSchw"}

#22.1 - Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:19 AM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"626192","isPrivate":false}

SCOTT ISAACS

Backyard

Should U.S. Presidents Be Put On Trial Automatically When Their Term Ends?

Live Poll

Live Poll

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

	Yes, such a system would force more honesty
	No, it's a fundamental Constitutional violation