Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you didn't read the articles, the legal scholars, the post or the precedents and the opinions of those who study and teach con law and know a whole lot more than you do.
Just more of the same old bluster.
No, I've read them, and I've spelled out why that propaganda is not convincing. Again, if it was as your talking points suggest, the Chief Justice wouldn't have bailed on it.
Clearly you don't know enough to understand the reasons I'm saying the Senate lacks authority. Also, as I've spelled out to you, there's never been a successful trial of anyone who didn't currently hold a public office....largely due to those voting admitting they lacked the authority to have the trial to begin with. It's also never been challenged in court.
For those reasons, citing alleged "precedent" is irrelevant.
Now, more to the point, unless you can find Constitutional authority for the Senate holding a trial for a private citizen that holds no office, you're pretty much done here.
The Senate can say "we have the right to hold this trial", but the natural question to ask is "Based on what?" or "According to whom?" They'd have no answer to those questions that would be all that convincing, and that's why if they continue to push forward, the SCOTUS will have to slap them down. They don't want to have to, that's why they sent the shot across the bow that was the Chief Justice telling them he'd have no part in their sham trial. They either take the hint, or they get smacked by SCOTUS, their choice.
Good for Chief Justice John Roberts for not wanting to have anything to do with this unconstitutional fiasco.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents any federal officer from being tried after they're out of office. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that a president ---who has shown himself to be a deadly threat to our survival as a constitutional republic ---should be able to run out the clock on our ability to condemn his conduct and to ensure that it can never recur.
In fact the preponderance of legal opinion--- currently and throughout the years ---among constitutional law scholars is an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office. Additionally, in a recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service it is stated, “most scholars who have closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office.”
The above article written by Laurence H. Tribe, University Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and co-author of “To End A Presidency: The Power of Impeachment" lays out and explains Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution.
The only fiasco is that which Trump created and perpetuated with his Big Lie as he incited insurrection in a last ditch attempt to illegally stay in power by stopping Congress' lawful work.
Last edited by corpgypsy; 01-25-2021 at 05:27 PM..
Why didn't the father think about how his actions would affect his family? The kid isn't at fault. The father is. What a horrible situation for the kid to be put in. As for the threatening to shoot your own kid, whether he "meant it" or not, what a despicable thing to say.
At what point do you decide that you wait to say something? After someone is hurt or killed? What a thing for the kid to have to live with, knowing that you could have spoken up and didn't. He was between a rock and a hard place. He chose to report. I don't blame him at all.
You were wrong then too. The good news for you is that we probably won't have to wait that long for SCOTUS to settle this and you can find out that your talking points were lying to you.
The Senate has the authority to hold a trial for the president, but Trump is not the president, so they have no authority to put him on trial for anything. Again guy, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS was trying to tell you that when he said he'd have no part in a sham trial.
Unless you can point to somewhere in the constitution that gives the Senate the power to put private citizens who hold no office on trial, you're sunk.
He was the president** when he committed the crimes. The Senate has jurisdiction.
There is not precedent. He was a circuit judge at the time of his impeachment. He committed impeachable offenses as a circuit judge and as a district court judge, and both were used in his impeachment trial.
On top of that, the constitution says that a circuit judge can be impeached. It does not say that a private citizen can be impeached.
the House impeached trump on Jan 13. While he was still president. How soon we forget...
I never said otherwise. He was already impeached. It doesn't mean the trial is legal, because he is now a private citizen. The constitution says that public officials can be impeached. The argument of the left leaning lawyers is that the constitution does not say that you can't try a private citizen. But if you read the wording in the constitution, it is clearly saying that you can impeach public officials, at the exclusion of anyone else. After all, why would it even state "public officials" if it were referring to people who are NOT public officials? Makes no sense. I think they are grasping at straws.
Trump WAS a public official when he was impeached
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
