Serious Question

[Cecilie1200]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

So you think the founders wanted the Senate to have the ability to stop a popular opposition candidate from running again by impeaching him for exercising his first amendment rights?

I think founders wanted the congress to have power to impeach and deny holding office again. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put in the constitution.

Since this country was founded courts have maintained that advocating the commission of a crime is not protected by freedom of speech..

I'm pretty sure that in the days of the founders, they would certainly agree with the impeachment of Trump and banning him from future public office regardless of how popular he might be. The founders believe that those serving in public office should be of high moral character. This is why so many public officials were impeached for drunkenness, behavior unbecoming the office, favoritism, being of low moral character, failing to pay duties, failure to supervise, and abuse of power. How popular a candidate might be with the people would not be of much concern because most of founders did not like the idea of democracy and they though limiting voting to wealthy white male property owners was just fine. They certainly did not want the riff raff voting.

All I heard was, "This is what I want, so I'm just SURE the Founders would agree with it and that it's noble and right."

Find me ONE Democrat you have ever voted for that you consider to qualify you to sit in sanctimonious judgement on Trump's "moral character", wearing your George Washington mask. Would that be Grandpa Badfinger, credibly accused of sexual assault and financial improprieties with foreign countries? Or Kneepads Kamala, who got her start in politics by fucking a married politician? Barack Obama, whose administration was littered with scandals despite the blindfolds you leftists determinedly glued to your eyes so that you could laughably tell us how "scandal-free" he was? Bill and Hillary Clinton, skating out of accusations of financial and sexual misbehavior all the way back to Arkansas only because witnesses kept dying?

Go ahead, tell me all about the "lack of character" because of Trump's mean tweets, or about how, "We accused him of all this stuff, so that MUST make him bad!!!" I'm dying to hear your credentials to elevate yourself to Grand High Moral Inquisitor.

 

[Faun]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

 

[Flopper]

Biden won for the same reason Trump won in 2016. Voters simply did not like the alternative.

We are seeing the greatness of Trump leadership in the Covid-19 statistics, better known to Donald as the common flu, 442,000 dead and expected to become the deadliest epidemic in American history. Trump's leadership in getting a vaccine amounted to an advanced purchase contract with Moderna. Phizer, the first company to get FDA approval was not part of Warp Speed. Like everything Trump touched, he fucked this up. We are getting half the number of vaccines we need and it is critical we get the country vaccinated before we get a strand that proves to be the superbug.

Trump had his opportunity to lead the country out this disaster last March and he decide the election was more important to him so he dumped the leadership on the states in April. Since the people hated masks and closures of businesses, he made this a campaign issue and thus millions of American abandon the only weapon we had against the virus. The CDC, the group with the most knowledge and experience fighting epidemics was relegated to counting cases and deaths and states were left to struggle while Trump campaigned.

If you are going to blame Trump for the 442,000 deaths from Covid, are you willing to do the same with DumBama who had over 200,000 Americans die from the common flu during his two terms? And if not, why not? Please go into detail.

Phizer was the first company to get the vaccine by two weeks ahead of Moderna. However Phizer refused to sign an exclusive contract with the US. They wanted to sell their vaccine around the world and we would have to just take a place in line. With the contract Trump secured with Moderna, Americans came first. The US is vaccinating over 1 million Americans every day. How much faster do you want it to go? Now incompetent Joe is trying to hitch his wagon to Trump's success, and the media will surely be giving him credit instead of the person that deserves it.

States are to be responsible for their own citizens. A President leads the federal government, not states. Again, look up states rights in the US Constitution. In spite of that, Trump responded to the states request for help. He got ships retrofitted to take care of the Covid patients their state could not. He sent the military to NYC to do the same with places like the Javits center, and Cuomo decided he wasn't going to use these facilities, he was going to ship those infected people into nursing homes killing many of them.

Trump never made masks a campaign issue. He did however recommend that states keep their businesses and schools open. They stated they were trying to contain the virus, and it had nothing to do with politics. Well if that's the case, why is it after slow Joe won, they are now making plans to do what Trump desired them to do when the cases are twice as bad now as they were when they originally shut them down?

You just don't understand that the commies main focus is on power. They don't care how many die, how many are forced out of business, how many kids commit suicide from being separated from their friends in school. As long as they can make the opponent look bad to win an election, F those people.

Like Trump you're comparing corvid to the flu. Unlike the common flu there was no effective treatment for covid, no vaccine, and the infection rate was far higher than the flu. Our only protection from covid was social distancing and masks. Trump down played the virus and made wearing masks and social distancing a campaign issue. Even after the election many his followers refuse to wear mask and are still spreading lies that masks are ineffective. Trump abandon federal management of the virus last April, leaving it to states and infections skyrocketed as the states lacked both expertise and funds. In most states managing the epidemic became a political issue and America's response to the virus was worst in world.

I get a little tired of hearing about Donald Trump saving the country by giving us a vaccine. The fact is both Moderna and Pfizer began developing an mRNA vaccine in the middle of January. In addition 10 other organization also began development in January. Both Moderna and Pfizer had proven their vaccine effective in the lab and were ready for clinical trials when Warp Speed was announced. Warp speed provided Moderna with additional funding and a advanced purchase contract. Pfizer refused government funding but agreed to sells doses of the vaccine to the government when it had FDA approval.

Warp Speed seems to have been handled well and Donald Trump certainly deserves credit for it since it happened on his watch. But vaccine development started long before it was a twinkle in his eye; everyone understood from the start that speed was critical; and it was Congress that allocated the funds to make it possible. Only after all that did Trump wrap a bow around everything by giving it a name. It was hardly a stroke of genius that only he could ever have come up with.

Operation Warp Speed: A timeline

www.motherjones.com

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

 

[Flopper]

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

So you think the founders wanted the Senate to have the ability to stop a popular opposition candidate from running again by impeaching him for exercising his first amendment rights?

I think founders wanted the congress to have power to impeach and deny holding office again. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put in the constitution.

Since this country was founded courts have maintained that advocating the commission of a crime is not protected by freedom of speech..

I'm pretty sure that in the days of the founders, they would certainly agree with the impeachment of Trump and banning him from future public office regardless of how popular he might be. The founders believe that those serving in public office should be of high moral character. This is why so many public officials were impeached for drunkenness, behavior unbecoming the office, favoritism, being of low moral character, failing to pay duties, failure to supervise, and abuse of power. How popular a candidate might be with the people would not be of much concern because most of founders did not like the idea of democracy and they though limiting voting to wealthy white male property owners was just fine. They certainly did not want the riff raff voting.

All I heard was, "This is what I want, so I'm just SURE the Founders would agree with it and that it's noble and right."

Find me ONE Democrat you have ever voted for that you consider to qualify you to sit in sanctimonious judgement on Trump's "moral character", wearing your George Washington mask. Would that be Grandpa Badfinger, credibly accused of sexual assault and financial improprieties with foreign countries? Or Kneepads Kamala, who got her start in politics by fucking a married politician? Barack Obama, whose administration was littered with scandals despite the blindfolds you leftists determinedly glued to your eyes so that you could laughably tell us how "scandal-free" he was? Bill and Hillary Clinton, skating out of accusations of financial and sexual misbehavior all the way back to Arkansas only because witnesses kept dying?

Go ahead, tell me all about the "lack of character" because of Trump's mean tweets, or about how, "We accused him of all this stuff, so that MUST make him bad!!!" I'm dying to hear your credentials to elevate yourself to Grand High Moral Inquisitor.

I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries, and thousand of other violations of common decency. Presidents were considered to be role models. Hopefully, that is no longer true.

 

[OKTexas]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Exactly, it says "removal, and disqualification" not removal, OR disqualification. Removal must come first, which isn't possible.

.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

 

[OKTexas]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.

 

[Faun]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Exactly, it says "removal, and disqualification" not removal, OR disqualification. Removal must come first, which isn't possible.

.

Nope. They're voted on separately.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction​

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

Yeah, the resolution was a defense motion to dismiss, saying a senator was not impeachable, and they dismissed it saying he WAS impeachable.

From my link:

Blount's attorneys challenged the jurisdiction of the Senate over Blount on two distinct grounds: first, that a Senator was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of the Constitution's Impeachment Clause; and second, that because Blount had been expelled in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and therefore the Senate no longer had jurisdiction over him.

The first was voted down, the second was upheld causing the impeachment to be dismissed. Get an adult to read and explain it to ya. Reading is fundamental.

Guides and Resources: Impeachment : Senator William Blount

Provides an overview of the Congressional power ofimpeachment, impeachment procedures, and past presidential and other executive branch impeachments.

law-richmond.libguides.com

.

 

[Faun]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.

LOLOL

You couldn't be more wrong. They're separate votes. They're also separate from a vote to convict. The Senate first votes on a verdict. That requires 2/3rds to pass. If it passes, then they vote on removal. That too requires 2/3rds to pass. Then they vote on disqualification. That requires a simple majority to pass. And since they're separate votes, they can vote not to remove; and then vote to disqualify. In Twice Impeached Trump's case, if he's convicted, which seems damn near impossible, they would skip the vote to remove and proceed directly to the vote to disqualify.

 

[OKTexas]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Exactly, it says "removal, and disqualification" not removal, OR disqualification. Removal must come first, which isn't possible.

.

Nope. They're voted on separately.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

​

Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction​

What commie lawyer dreamed that up?

.

 

[OKTexas]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.

LOLOL

You couldn't be more wrong. They're separate votes. They're also separate from a vote to convict. The Senate first votes on a verdict. That requires 2/3rds to pass. If it passes, then they vote on removal. That too requires 2/3rds to pass. Then they vote on disqualification. That requires a simple majority to pass. And since they're separate votes, they can vote not to remove; and then vote to disqualify. In Twice Impeached Trump's case, if he's convicted, which seems damn near impossible, they would skip the vote to remove and proceed directly to the vote to disqualify.

Show me where the Constitution says removal, OR disqualification.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Oh? What is it?

Been posted and mentioned several times in this thread, feel free to go look it up. Don't come in the thread on the 12th day and expect to be pampered.

.

That is not a precedent. They voted to not hold a trial because a Senator can't be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.​

Senators are not civil officers.

Not what the senate said. A precedent that has stood for 222 years.

.

That's exactly what they said. They voted against this...

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.​

And then voted to dismiss the trial on that.

The only thing mentioned in there which is in violation of the Constitution is that he was called a "civil officer," which Senators are not. At most, you could argue that Senate was not clear enough on whether their reason was because Blount wasn't a civil officer or because they had already expelled him -- but you lose the argument there too as ambiguity is not precedence.

Even worse for you, Belknap was impeached in 1876 and then resigned to avoid the Senate trial -- they tried him anyway because there is no such precedent as you claim.

Damn child, you just prove you illiteracy again. The said he was liable for impeachment, but dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction because he was out of office. Read it again.

LOL

Moron, they voted against that resolution.

Yeah, the resolution was a defense motion to dismiss, saying a senator was not impeachable, and they dismissed it saying he WAS impeachable.

From my link:

Blount's attorneys challenged the jurisdiction of the Senate over Blount on two distinct grounds: first, that a Senator was not a "civil officer" within the meaning of the Constitution's Impeachment Clause; and second, that because Blount had been expelled in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and therefore the Senate no longer had jurisdiction over him.

The first was voted down, the second was upheld causing the impeachment to be dismissed. Get an adult to read and explain it to ya. Reading is fundamental.

Guides and Resources: Impeachment : Senator William Blount

Provides an overview of the Congressional power ofimpeachment, impeachment procedures, and past presidential and other executive branch impeachments.

law-richmond.libguides.com

.

Holy shit, now you're changing the wording of the resolutions on which they voted. Neither resolution specified "first" and "second." And here's the first resolution...

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.​

There's nothing in that resolution that shows the first argument failed but the second argument passed. The Senate merely bundled the two arguments together in that one resolution and voted against it.

Then they voted on another resolution whether or not to dismiss the trial...

The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.​

That one doesn't mention either of Blount's arguments and it passed.

I can't tell .... are you lying or just stupid?

 

[Faun]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.

Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.

LOLOL

You couldn't be more wrong. They're separate votes. They're also separate from a vote to convict. The Senate first votes on a verdict. That requires 2/3rds to pass. If it passes, then they vote on removal. That too requires 2/3rds to pass. Then they vote on disqualification. That requires a simple majority to pass. And since they're separate votes, they can vote not to remove; and then vote to disqualify. In Twice Impeached Trump's case, if he's convicted, which seems damn near impossible, they would skip the vote to remove and proceed directly to the vote to disqualify.

Show me where the Constitution says removal, OR disqualification.

.

I don't need to. I showed you how the Senate votes. They vote up to 2 times following a conviction. one vote to remove which requires 2/3rds to pass. The other vote is to disqualify requiring only a simple majority to pass.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

LOLOL

To the brain-dead conspiratorial right, following the Constitution is now communist.

Damn child, thanks for proving how illiterate, or is it senile, you are.

.

LOL

The Senate is moving forward according to the Constitution. Your response was, "of course, they're commies after all."

Long standing precedent says they are not moving forward according to the Constitution, a precedent set during the founding era. In fact Blount signed the Constitution and worked for its ratification. I would say congressional actions in that era would conform constitutionally more accurately than actions further removed from the founding. I wonder why you commies always try to bastardize the Constitution to push you agenda. Nah, we all know why.

.

The Constitution fails your argument too. It states...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments.​

Emphasis mine

The ignorance is yours, that's all you got. But I do appreciate you bumping my thread.

.

LOLOL

You need the meaning of the word, "ALL," taught to you???

 

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

So you think the founders wanted the Senate to have the ability to stop a popular opposition candidate from running again by impeaching him for exercising his first amendment rights?

I think founders wanted the congress to have power to impeach and deny holding office again. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put in the constitution.

Since this country was founded courts have maintained that advocating the commission of a crime is not protected by freedom of speech..

I'm pretty sure that in the days of the founders, they would certainly agree with the impeachment of Trump and banning him from future public office regardless of how popular he might be. The founders believe that those serving in public office should be of high moral character. This is why so many public officials were impeached for drunkenness, behavior unbecoming the office, favoritism, being of low moral character, failing to pay duties, failure to supervise, and abuse of power. How popular a candidate might be with the people would not be of much concern because most of founders did not like the idea of democracy and they though limiting voting to wealthy white male property owners was just fine. They certainly did not want the riff raff voting.

All I heard was, "This is what I want, so I'm just SURE the Founders would agree with it and that it's noble and right."

Find me ONE Democrat you have ever voted for that you consider to qualify you to sit in sanctimonious judgement on Trump's "moral character", wearing your George Washington mask. Would that be Grandpa Badfinger, credibly accused of sexual assault and financial improprieties with foreign countries? Or Kneepads Kamala, who got her start in politics by fucking a married politician? Barack Obama, whose administration was littered with scandals despite the blindfolds you leftists determinedly glued to your eyes so that you could laughably tell us how "scandal-free" he was? Bill and Hillary Clinton, skating out of accusations of financial and sexual misbehavior all the way back to Arkansas only because witnesses kept dying?

Go ahead, tell me all about the "lack of character" because of Trump's mean tweets, or about how, "We accused him of all this stuff, so that MUST make him bad!!!" I'm dying to hear your credentials to elevate yourself to Grand High Moral Inquisitor.

I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries, and thousand of other violations of common decency. Presidents were considered to be role models. Hopefully, that is no longer true.

Oh, you're proud of the fact that none of the leftist media - redundant, I know - ever bothers to ask Democrats to answer for the things they're accused of? You're feeling moral, are you, because you consider "He talked about women letting him grab their pussies!!" to be right up there with serial-killing?

If this litany of Puritanical excuse-making is supposed to be your justification for your moral authority, you fell way short. I believe I'll just go right on telling you to go fuck yourself with your "outrage".