Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 8,210
- 7,409
- 1,938
Now you're adding verbiage to the Constitution which isn't really there. Nothing in that amendment says anything about "private citizens." It applies to all citizens, both private and public. The only stipulation along those lines is that they had to have been a federal or state legislature or officer when rebelling or giving comfort or aid to those who do.Of course they can. Where'd you come up with such a ridiculous notion?That matters not.Uh, no it's not. The Constitution authorizes the senate to try "ALL" impeachments...Wut?? How was the Constitution violated?So now, according to the Right, holding someone accountable "backfires". Ok. And trump will be presenting no such evidence of election fraud.....none whatsoever
Violating the Constitution will backfire, for sure.
Having a trial for a Private Citizen is a violation, as well as having the trial presided by a political hack instead of the Chief Justice as prescribed by the Constitution.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
Congress can't bar private citizens from running from office. Only a conviction in a court of law can do that.
Does not apply. They could have barred the last POTUS from running for office, not a "private citizen".
Absolutely applies. Impeachment is for removal of an elected representitive, not for barring a private citizen from running for office. The Constitution is very specific in regards to impeachment.
Sure is. So was the article of impeachment, which was generated on January 13. Guess who was in office then.
I gives you a hint.
It rhymes with "Dump".
The trial didn't start until after 20 January. Guess who was a private citizen after that date.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
The Senate can't bar a private citizen from running for office.
First of all, there's the 14th Amendment which in part states...
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
According to you, the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional even though it's in the Constitution.
Secondly, there's 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection...
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Again, according to you, a private citizen could violate that law and the Senate can bar them for holding an office even though that law specifically forbids it.
What you your mind invalidates section 3 of the 14th Amendment and 18 U.S. Code § 2383....?
The 14th Amendment applies to a person who's been convicted of treason, or insurrection in a court of law. It doesn't give Congress the authority to bar a private citizen from running for office. Doing so would be a bill of attainder and bills of attainder are prohibted by The Constitution.
And in terms of the office of the president, the Congress decides whether or not to certify an election. Meaning even if Trump were to run again and win the election, no one can prevent Congress from objecting to certifying the election on those grounds, should they choose to do so.
And, they have to been convicted of treason, or insurrection in a court of law.
There are two parts of The Constitution that say so:
1. "Article I, Section 9, Clause 3", which states,
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
2. 'The 5th Amendment", which states, "
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Barring a private citizen from office isn't "due process of the law" because the law specifically states that "no bill of attainder shall be passed".
I'm not adding anything. I'm quoting the exact verbage of The Constitution.