No. of Recommendations: 2
If that order is given (and followed) through normal channels, then the FBI (or whomever, but it would probably be the FBI) will have obtained a warrant for the arrest - and will thus have needed to disclose sufficient reasons/evidence to the court to establish probable cause. If that's the case, then what crime has the President committed? Because the warrant was issued, we know that the President didn't just make up the National Security reason out of whole cloth, and the determination that the person should be detained was reviewed by the judiciary. It's hard to see how that's the basis for any criminal proceeding against the President.
Aaah, I see my flaw. I was thinking the military were picking him up, but there is also a military due process that must be followed. That's where I err. I am going to assume that each court has a system where judges that have clearance for such issues review the evidence, and I definitely see your point.
What if the President orders the FBI to not obtain the warrant and just go ahead with the seizure without it? Then he's clearly engaged in an act that's not only outside his authority, but which he is directly prohibited from doing by the Constitution. He can't then claim immunity for that act, under the majority's reasoning.
Thanks for clarifying. It will now be clear for a while. If you ask me next month it will take a while before it pops back into my head, and my memory can be faulty. Age - sigh.
Follow and think the process.
