Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?

[CowboyTed]

It is pretty simple...

Nobody is above the law... SC has said this a few times...

So trial by Senate or trial in criminal court?

Which one?

 

[meaner gene]

So, here you are arguing what it means based on what YOU are inserting into it?

My goodness, are you ever a dishonest piece of shit.

Once convicted the impeached is removed from office. At that instant his status changes to private citizen.

What other interpretation is there?

 

[meaner gene]

You did no such thing.

Impeachment process is for sitting officials, not former.

Thread fail.

You clowns own this shitshow.

The senate can only bar a private citizen from holding future office.

 

[meaner gene]

It is pretty simple...

Nobody is above the law... SC has said this a few times...

So trial by Senate or trial in criminal court?

Which one?

The constitution specifically says you can do both.

 

[Quasar44]

I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.

From the Constitution:


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.

There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.

As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.

It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.

It’s 100 percent unconstitutional

 

[meaner gene]

It’s 100 percent unconstitutional

Based on what? If you read what I posted, it proves the senate can try a former officer, who is currently a private citizen to render judgement to bar them from future office.

IF that's constitutional, how can what leads to it be unconstitutional.

 

[Quasar44]

It’s 100 percent unconstitutional

Based on what? If you read what I posted, it proves the senate can try a former officer, who is currently a private citizen to render judgement to bar them from future office.

IF that's constitutional, how can what leads to it be unconstitutional.

The constitution is clear the senate cannot charge a private citizen

 

[meaner gene]

January 15, 20205:00 AM ET

House Impeachment Managers Deliver Articles To The Senate

Earlier in the day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven Democratic members of Congress as the managers who will argue the case for impeachment.

Those managers brought the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening.

The House voted earlier in the day on a resolution to transmit the articles and confirm the impeachment managers. It was 228-193, largely along party lines.

 

[meaner gene]

The constitution is clear the senate cannot charge a private citizen

The constitution is clear that the senate can only try a private citizen in order to bar them from holding future office.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?
Dershowitz says NO !
Starting at time 10:05...

Spicer & Co. (11/15/21)

Sean and Lyndsay discuss today's news and politics.

www.newsmaxtv.com

 

[Quasar44]

The constitution is clear the senate cannot charge a private citizen

The constitution is clear that the senate can only try a private citizen in order to bar them from holding future office.

They have no such power - it’s a fake trial to showcase the Dems strength as being powerful Stalins

 

[meaner gene]

Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?
Dershowitz says NO !
Starting at time 10:05...

Spicer & Co. (11/15/21)

Sean and Lyndsay discuss today's news and politics.

www.newsmaxtv.com

Do you have Dershowitz's arguments?

 

[meaner gene]

The constitution is clear that the senate can only try a private citizen in order to bar them from holding future office.

They have no such power - it’s a fake trial to showcase the Dems strength as being powerful Stalins

Senate removes federal judge in impeachment conviction

The U.S. Senate found Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment on Wednesday, which will remove him from the federal bench.

www.cnn.com

The U.S. Senate found Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment on Wednesday, which will remove him from the federal bench.

He had been accused of accepting kick-backs and lying to the Senate and FBI.

The vote makes Porteous, 63, only the eighth federal judge in the nation's history to be impeached and convicted.

Porteous is also "forever disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States," Sen. Daniel Inouye said during Wednesday's Senate hearing.

The Senate adopted the motion barring Porteous from holding a future federal office by a vote of 94 to 2.

Was this trial legal?

 

[Turtlesoup]

I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.

From the Constitution:


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.

There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.

As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.

It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.

Here I will you out.....

Where the law says "When the President of the United States is tried, " notice that they don't say Ex-president.

Simple---impeachment does not apply to ex-presidents. DUH

 

[Dogbiscuit]

Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?
Dershowitz says NO !
Starting at time 10:05...

Spicer & Co. (11/15/21)

Sean and Lyndsay discuss today's news and politics.

www.newsmaxtv.com

Do you have Dershowitz's arguments?

If you dont want to watch and listen to the clip, and accept the opinion from a constitutional expert, then thats your problem.
Its a sham and you know it. Read em and weep.
I'll take Dershowitz opinion over yours, thank you.

 

[meaner gene]

Here I will you out.....

Where the law says "When the President of the United States is tried, " notice that they don't say Ex-president.

Simple---impeachment does not apply to ex-presidents. DUH

The constitution doesn't mention judges being impeached, but they're included.

 

[meaner gene]

Do you have Dershowitz's arguments?

If you dont want to watch and listen to the clip, and accept the opinion from a constitutional expert, then thats your problem.
Its a sham and you know it. Read em and weep.
I'll take Dershowitz opinion over yours, thank you.

The video is 42 minutes long.

 

[Chuz Life]

You must have missed this part

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office

Actually you left half of it out.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States:

Right.

It is AND

Not "or"

 

[Chuz Life]

You must have missed this part

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office

Actually you left half of it out.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States:

Yes, and that half said AND. It did not say OR.

It is about removing a person from office AND preventing them from further office. It was obviosly not written in such a way as to give power to prevent private citizens from running for office.

Damn.

Beat me to it.

 

[MeBelle]

You must have missed this part

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office

Actually you left half of it out.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States:

That takes another vote, outside of the trial and vote to find a sitting President guilty.