Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSupreme CourtGovernanceExecutive PowerPresidential ImmunityConstitutional LawCriminal Prosecution•••Started 3mos agoActive 20hrs ago

Should former Presidents be granted absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office?

The debate over presidential immunity centers on whether a former U.S. President can be prosecuted for actions taken during their term. The Supreme Court recently ruled that presidents have substantial immunity for official acts, fundamentally altering the landscape of executive power. Proponents argue that without this shield, presidents would be paralyzed by the threat of retaliatory, politically motivated trials by their successors. Opponents argue that absolute immunity effectively places the executive branch above the law, giving future presidents a green light to commit crimes without accountability.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 30k America voters.

15%
Yes
85%
No
10%
Yes
73%
No
4%
Yes, but strictly for official duties; the Oval Office isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for personal crimes
10%
No, no one is above the law, and granting king-like immunity is a direct pathway to authoritarianism
1%
Yes, the president needs absolute immunity to make tough decisions without fear of partisan witch hunts
2%
No, but to prevent weaponizing the justice system, prosecutors need a much higher burden of proof to indict a former president

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 30k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 30k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @BCR2JHX from New Mexico  answered…2mos2MO

Nobody is above the law, not even the current president.

 @BCQ4WK4 from Missouri  answered…2mos2MO

No, because then they can start wars that nobody wanted

 @BCQQ777 from Colorado  answered…2mos2MO

No, and indict the current president

 @BDLNPRFfrom Louisiana  answered…4wks4W

A president should never have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Whether a president has immunity from criminal prosecution regarding an official act depends on what the official act is.

 @BDLVQM8 from California  answered…4wks4W

no, every servant of the oppressors of the world should face the wall

 @BDLLPMR from Indiana  answered…4wks4W

No, all men need to answer to god

 @BDLJTKW from Texas  answered…4wks4W

Regardless the centralized government should be abolished

 @BDLCYVM from Washington  answered…1mo1MO

Depends on circumstances, charge(s), and evidence.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies