Technically, President Grant got pulled over, and taken into custody, in 1872 for "speeding on a horse within the city limits of Washington DC." It was the third such ticket he was given in his life, the first two being in the early part of the 1860s when he was just a General. The cop tried to let him go, and Grant cited section 1983 of the federal code that had been passed a few months previously in 1871 that stated unequivocally that no one is above the law, not even a sitting president.

[–] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

you didn't need to but you did choose to preface this with "technically" which should have tipped you off that this really isn't in the same arena.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

No, but it is an excuse to share this article about that law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

This really means that Harlow v Fitzgerald should be overturned.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Hmm out of curiosity, what's the current status of that law?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

It's still in the congressional record, but in 1874 an unnamed secretary, I believe had Southern Revisionist views, unilaterally revised the law, so it has been improperly copied into the Federal Register ever since.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Police immunity is another interesting angle I hadn't thought of. I was thinking about whether it was relevant to the recent supreme Court ruling, maybe even some ammo for impeachment if they directly contradicted a law with their ruling.