Scenario: You're President, and...

[Patriot123]

So say you're president. You have a philosophy of following the rule of law, no matter what. You ran off of this platform, and the people expect you to follow it. Now say you are presented with signing legislation to arrest Bush for infringing upon the Constitution. Problem? Every president in history has infringed upon the Constitution in some way or another. So what to do? Do you sign it and only have Bush tried by a jury? Do you not sign it, return it and suggest that every living president be tried by a jury? Do you not sign it, and have no one tried by a jury and break your very own principles?

Think of the complications and the impracticality of having every living president arrested - the political ramifications. Is it practical? Wouldn't the public think you're out of your mind?
Think of the ramifications of only trying Bush for crimes. You would thus be saying that every other president is innocent, and that the Constitution is irrelevant - that it can be picked a part. That the rule of law is meaningless.
Think of the ramifications of not trying anyone. Would you not be saying that they're all innocent, then?

[KCIndy]

Wouldn't this be a matter of degree?

"Infringing on the Constitution" isn't a legal charge, is it? Would the charges include conspiracy charges? Treason? Murder?

As far as bringing a president to trial, I would think the severity of the charges would have to be considered, because such a trial would probably throw the country into chaos at best and civil war at worst.

[idiom]

Technically they have all pretty much covered themselves legally.

The laws, such as insider trading etc need to be reinstated first.

Most of the really big laws most presidents violated are not recognised by the United States anyways.

[Icymudpuppy]

Well, instead, I would identify exactly at what point each president violated their oath of office, and hold individual impeachment trials for every president both alive and dead, and any executive actions any president made after their first violation of their oath would be rescinded. Any bills signed into law after the date of violation would become voided and treated as if they were pocket vetoed. Any executive orders made after the first violation of the oath would become void and stricken from US doctrine.

It would be a pretty major undertaking.

[jrkotrla]

...what to do? Do you sign it and only have Bush tried by a jury? Do you not sign it, return it and suggest that every living president be tried by a jury? Do you not sign it, and have no one tried by a jury and break your very own principles?...

I think I'd begin with returning to a constitutional framework as closely as I could through independent action of the office of the POTUS. Then I'd ask the house of representatives to examine the evidence (turning over everything and not using executive privilege) and let them decide whether or not to indict any of the former presidents. I think that they would most likely not indict them, but it would signal to the world and the HoR and Senate that I meant to follow the Constitution.

Then I would express to the members of both houses that I would VETO every single piece of legistlation they sent to my desk that was not expressly permitted by the constitution, regardless of "need", or "political expediency", or "blah, blah, blah".

I would spend a lot of time on TV and Radio explaining to the the people what the constitution allows the Federal Government to do and why I am not holding their hand every time something doesn't go their way.

[tremendoustie]

So say you're president. You have a philosophy of following the rule of law, no matter what. You ran off of this platform, and the people expect you to follow it. Now say you are presented with signing legislation to arrest Bush for infringing upon the Constitution. Problem? Every president in history has infringed upon the Constitution in some way or another. So what to do? Do you sign it and only have Bush tried by a jury? Do you not sign it, return it and suggest that every living president be tried by a jury? Do you not sign it, and have no one tried by a jury and break your very own principles?

Think of the complications and the impracticality of having every living president arrested - the political ramifications. Is it practical? Wouldn't the public think you're out of your mind?
Think of the ramifications of only trying Bush for crimes. You would thus be saying that every other president is innocent, and that the Constitution is irrelevant - that it can be picked a part. That the rule of law is meaningless.
Think of the ramifications of not trying anyone. Would you not be saying that they're all innocent, then?

This whole issue would be about #31,034,345 on my list of priorities.