Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.
I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.
No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.
And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.
The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.
Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.
Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.
Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.
What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"
It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.
What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?
You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.
Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.
Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.
If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.
Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.
Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached.
The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.
I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.
No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.
And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.
The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.
Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.
Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.
Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.
What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"
It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.
What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?
You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.
Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.
Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.
If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.
Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.
Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached.
No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.
And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.
The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.
Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.
Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.
Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.
What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"
It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.
What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?
You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.
Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.
Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.
If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.
Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.
Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached. Or the other way 'round: Andrew Johnson was impeached for something that could not have been an indictment --- defiance of the Tenure of Office Act passed the year before (which Johnson regarded as unConstitutional). He could have been removed from office had that impeachment succeeded, but he could not have been convicted.
STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.
No explanation is required. All the info you need to know i am correct is in the posted text. If you can't figure that out, it's because you're a moron.again, a leftist with post and go with absolutely no explanation.
False.nope, has to be impeached and removed from office.
Why? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time.
I read nothing there that supports a claim that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted while holding office. However, there is an immense amount of constitutional case law relying on all kinds of silly shit that isn’t there, so......Or, is the President of the United States above the law?
What say you?
Here's an Op-Ed:
Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President
And other written opinions:
Can a president be indicted while in office?
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub
Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President
true. I can do this all day. I don't think the mods will take kindly to a repeat, so please respond with that thought in mind.False.nope, has to be impeached and removed from office.
Embarrass yourself? Well,no shit, you did it all day yesterday, too.I can do this all day
dude, I can tell you to fk off every day all day fking long. when you can stay on point let's debate, when you utilize leftists tactics I will tell you to fk off. I have no interest in their shit.Embarrass yourself? Well,no shit, you did it all day yesterday, too.I can do this all day
name a president that this has happened to. go for it. Indicted while a sitting president. go!!! I'll wait for the skate deflect.No explanation is required. All the info you need to know i am correct is in the posted text. If you can't figure that out, it's because you're a moron.again, a leftist with post and go with absolutely no explanation.
I did. I posted the text. To say it says a president cannot be indicted is simply false. It's all right there.when you can stay on point
No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.
And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.
The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.
Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.
Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.
Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.
What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"
It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.
What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?
You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.
Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.
Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.
If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.
Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.
Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached.
But you then quoted the next section, which seems to lay out the precedence of each proceeding.
i.e. you have to get the office holder impeached and then you get to try them for what you want to.
does it provide a step by step procedure for removal or indictment? Doh!I did. I posted the text. To say it says a president cannot be indicted is simply false. It's all right there.when you can stay on point
Why are you asking me stupid questions?does it provide a step by step procedure for removal or indictment?I did. I posted the text. To say it says a president cannot be indicted is simply false. It's all right there.when you can stay on point
because I know you won't answer them. you have no desire to discuss the facts of the matter. the fact is the language dictates removal of a president and only that. not indicting a sitting president. when you find that language, please post it up, but for now the constitution only gives steps for removal. carry on with your deflection.Why are you asking me stupid questions?does it provide a step by step procedure for removal or indictment?I did. I posted the text. To say it says a president cannot be indicted is simply false. It's all right there.when you can stay on point
Except I reposted the exact text. Nowhere in it does it say a sitting president cannot be indicted. What is there to discuss? You're a moron troll,and you are wrong, as any 6 year old can read for himself.you have no desire to discuss the facts of the matter.
no where does it say he can. right? the mere absence of the word proves the point.Except I reposted the exact text. Nowhere in it does it say a sitting president cannot be indicted. What is there to discuss? You're a moron troll,and you are wrong, as any 6 year old can read for himself.you have no desire to discuss the facts of the matter.
I'm not sure this would work, for the following reasons:Of course, if the charges are damning enuff, then there could be the possibility that Orange Clown would resign, like Tricky Dick.
