Is The Pending Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump UnConstitutional? (Poll)

[meaner gene]

Actually it's within the powers of congress to enact acts of congress retroactively. Exampled by civil laws and tax laws that applied retroactively years before they were passed.

No, it absolutely is most certainly not. The Constitution explicitly forbids ex-post-facto laws, which is exactly what you are falsely saying Congress is allowed to do.

See Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 and Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

It is absolutely unconstitutional for any law to take effect retroactively.

Before you claim to be Perry Mason, the legal definition of ex-post-facto, is for criminal laws, not civil laws. And impeachment is a civil action, not a criminal one.

 

[meaner gene]

It is absolutely unconstitutional for any law to take effect retroactively.

Tell the supreme court, because they upheld retroactive tax laws, and retroactive civil laws. They didn't draw a line of how retroactive, but they allowed laws applicable going back 3 years, but they overturned going back retroactively 35 years.

 

[kyzr]

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

He was sec of the army. He was impeached for corruption, but tried to stop the process by resigning right before the vote to impeach him.

Congress voted to impeach him anyway, and the senate agreed to try him, concluding they were not limited to trying only current office holders.

Very true, but the Belknap impeachment meant absolutely nothing, he retired a wealthy man after a very successful career in business.
Impeachment means nothing to billionaire Trump, he can live very well in Mara Lago, FL.
Knock yourselves out, see if you can count to (67)...

 

[meaner gene]

Ex Post Facto | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
www.law.cornell.edu › Wex

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9.

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

Is reading an issue for you?

Go back and try again

You assert that an impeachment can happen after a president has left office by precedent.
My point was that Belknap wasn't a president.
McConnell wants to see the evidence, and is all too happy to throw Trump under the bus.
It remains to be seen if Chief Justice Roberts agrees with you that impeachment is not "limited to office holders" as referenced in the OP.

Belknap IS precedent. The Constitution makes no such distinction between the Impeachment of a Sec of War and the Presidency.

If you're looking for SCOTUS to save Trump you're gonna need a telescope because I doubt even the Justices he installed have any love for him. And it would take a LOT of love to save his sorry ass at this point

If you think there are (67) senators who would vote to convict I disagree. We'll see.
The legal opinions that I have seen all say that Trump's DC speech is not in any way impeachable.
Like McConnell, I'm curious what evidence the democrats have, besides their partisan hatred.

 

[meaner gene]

Congress voted to impeach him anyway, and the senate agreed to try him, concluding they were not limited to trying only current office holders.

Very true, but the Belknap impeachment meant absolutely nothing, he retired a wealthy man after a very successful career in business.

It established precedent.

 

[meaner gene]

If you think there are (67) senators who would vote to convict I disagree. We'll see.
The legal opinions that I have seen all say that Trump's DC speech is not in any way improper.
Like McConnell, I'm curious what evidence the democrats have, besides their partisan hatred.

If 25 republican senators decide they have better things to do the day of the vote. Trump can be convicted by just 50 democrats.

 

[Kondor3]

No.

Precedent already exists for impeaching a Federal official who has already left office.

 

[Lesh]

Very true, but the Belknap impeachment meant absolutely nothing, he retired a wealthy man after a very successful career in business.

Irrelevant

He was Impeached after leaving office. That IS precedent

As far as conviction, McConnell has indicated he wants the Orange albatross from around his neck.

Don't be surprised. Trump is not a well liked man in DC right about now...

 

[kyzr]

What part of there is no "jail" in the Constitutional impeachment of a president don't you get?
There are only two penalties:
1. Removal from office
2. Disqualification from future office
3. A resignation, means you don't need to be impeached to get removed

But a resignation under your view would prevent disqualification from future office.
Surely you can't sustain that resignation should bar all possible penalties.

A resignation means that the ex-president can be prosecuted for any crimes.
Barring from future office is not a serious penalty as far as real crimes are concerned.
For example, if the FBI proves that the Biden's money-laundering schemes are criminal, then he resigns, would you want Joe impeached so he couldn't run in 2024, or would you just want him prosecuted?

 

[kyzr]

If you think there are (67) senators who would vote to convict I disagree. We'll see.
The legal opinions that I have seen all say that Trump's DC speech is not in any way improper.
Like McConnell, I'm curious what evidence the democrats have, besides their partisan hatred.

If 25 republican senators decide they have better things to do the day of the vote. Trump can be convicted by just 50 democrats.

74m Trump voters will remember who voted for what...

 

[meaner gene]

No.

Precedent already exists for impeaching a Federal official who has already left office.

This can be thought of under the law of inertia. Congress has already written the articles of impeachment against belknop, and were going to vote on them, when he suddenly resigned. They decided the impeachment process was already underway, and could be continued post resignation.

 

[meaner gene]

If 25 republican senators decide they have better things to do the day of the vote. Trump can be convicted by just 50 democrats.

74m Trump voters will remember who voted for what...

Exactly. Under that circumstance, 25 republicans could effectively vote guilty by not showing up. And those that show up can all vote not guilty.
And Trump gets convicted.
Without a single republican on records as voting guilty.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

"It is limited to office holders" - Where does it say it doesn't apply to former office holders? Doesn't really matter to me actually as long as they get a censure which bans him from ever holding another elected office.

Besides, Twice Impeached Trump will always and forever be Twice Impeached Trump. And he managed that in one term, a record that is highly unlikely to ever be broken.

What are you scared of ?

 

[OldLady]

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

He was sec of the army. He was impeached for corruption, but tried to stop the process by resigning right before the vote to impeach him.

Congress voted to impeach him anyway, and the senate agreed to try him, concluding they were not limited to trying only current office holders.

Btw, he was acquitted by one vote, after all of that.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Since a trial requires a defendant be able to defend themselves, once Trump is out of office and is no longer a federal employee he can't defend himself in the senate court anymore.

So no, he can't be tried after leaving office.

 

[OldLady]

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

He was sec of the army. He was impeached for corruption, but tried to stop the process by resigning right before the vote to impeach him.

Congress voted to impeach him anyway, and the senate agreed to try him, concluding they were not limited to trying only current office holders.

Very true, but the Belknap impeachment meant absolutely nothing, he retired a wealthy man after a very successful career in business.
Impeachment means nothing to billionaire Trump, he can live very well in Mara Lago, FL.
Knock yourselves out, see if you can count to (67)...

Fine by me as long as he stays away from government. Hope the lying bastard stays off the airwaves, too, but we'll see. It's a much freer country than you folks are giving it credit for. Unless they put him in prison for something, once he's out of office, he's going to go to GAB, get on the talkshow circuit and do his typical lying like a rug.

 

[meaner gene]

What are you scared of ?

The incitement of armed insurrection.

 

[meaner gene]

Since a trial requires a defendant be able to defend themselves, once Trump is out of office and is no longer a federal employee he can't defend himself in the senate court anymore.

So no, he can't be tried after leaving office.

Last time Trump was defended by a private citizen. So your theory is bogus.

Starr, Dershowitz, Ray: Trump Leans On High-Wattage Lawyers For Impeachment

The president's defense team will be rounded out by a group of attorneys who are as comfortable in front of the television cameras as they are in courtrooms.

www.npr.org

The team will be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, a private attorney

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

He was sec of the army. He was impeached for corruption, but tried to stop the process by resigning right before the vote to impeach him.

Congress voted to impeach him anyway, and the senate agreed to try him, concluding they were not limited to trying only current office holders.

Btw, he was acquitted by one vote, after all of that.

The Senate cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Trump cannot be impeached once he leaves office.