Home
Posted By: denton Thinking About "Impeachment" - 01/26/21
Not an attorney... may be miles off base here:

The Constitution forbids any "bill of attainder". I had to look that one up. It means that no legislature can punish any person or group of people for something they have done in the past. That function belongs to the courts. The Senate and House cannot punish a private citizen.

Donald Trump is now a private citizen.

How is this so-called impeachment not a bill of attainder?
denton.
In case you haven't noticed we are in clown world now, anything is possible
I see nothing legal about this whole thing. Someone said it takes a majority vote of the senate to prevent a convicted president from ever holding office again. The constitution doesn't say that. It says 2/3 to convict, period.
Originally Posted by irfubar
denton.
In case you haven't noticed we are in clown world now, anything is possible



This
The upside to this latest TDS fueled political charade is that it's momentarily paused the crusade on the Bill of Rights.
Posted By: dassa Re: Thinking About "Impeachment" - 01/26/21
I can't believe anyone who has lived through the last four months still thinks the constitution has any validity in the minds of politicians.
Originally Posted by dassa
I can't believe anyone who has lived through the last four months still thinks the constitution has any validity in the minds of politicians.

Did you mean years?
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
I see nothing legal about this whole thing. Someone said it takes a majority vote of the senate to prevent a convicted president from ever holding office again. The constitution doesn't say that. It says 2/3 to convict, period.

2/3 is required to impeach. A majority prevents him from running for office again.
Originally Posted by JimFromTN
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
I see nothing legal about this whole thing. Someone said it takes a majority vote of the senate to prevent a convicted president from ever holding office again. The constitution doesn't say that. It says 2/3 to convict, period.

2/3 is required to impeach. A majority prevents him from running for office again.
A majority in the house is required to impeach, 2/3 in the senate to convict. The constitution says nothing about a majority to prevent him from holding office again. In the past, the senate has only ruled a convicted person can't hold office again 3 times, all 3 were federal judges. In each case, they used a 2/3 vote so the precedent is there. Before they can bar him from office, though, they need to convict him and 2/3 is required for that.
Originally Posted by irfubar
denton.
In case you haven't noticed we are in clown world now, anything is possible


With no rulz, only what the Demons say are the rulz, are the rulz.............................

How long??????????????????????

MM
Originally Posted by denton
Not an attorney... may be miles off base here:

The Constitution forbids any "bill of attainder". I had to look that one up. It means that no legislature can punish any person or group of people for something they have done in the past. That function belongs to the courts. The Senate and House cannot punish a private citizen.

Donald Trump is now a private citizen.

How is this so-called impeachment not a bill of attainder?

Previous thread:
private citizen.
Yer not rong.
Posted By: SBTCO Re: Thinking About "Impeachment" - 01/26/21
Originally Posted by JimFromTN
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
I see nothing legal about this whole thing. Someone said it takes a majority vote of the senate to prevent a convicted president from ever holding office again. The constitution doesn't say that. It says 2/3 to convict, period.

2/3 is required to impeach. A majority prevents him from running for office again.


He is not in office, he is a private citizen.
The "trial" is kabuki theater, has no standing, and legally he can run again if he so chooses.
The dims are trying to convince the useful idiots they are doing a great thing and protecting them from the great "SATANNNNN"!
Its all BS, just like "Russia Collusion".
Trump and the Republicans could shut it right down by just not showing up. I wonder if Trump is not looking forward to presenting his fraud evidence to the public where thee msm has to cover it. ;-{>8
Originally Posted by irfubar
denton.
In case you haven't noticed we are in clown world now, anything everything is possible



Slight correction sir..
Dems care nothing about the rule of law. Next they will try any up and comer for crimes that they may commit in the future, thus barring them from office. Dems plan to cancel anything that they don't like. Totalitarianism is very appealing to them. Their useful idiots (Jimfromwhogivesaphugg) are too slow to realize what their future holds.
Originally Posted by JimFromTN
Originally Posted by dassa
I can't believe anyone who has lived through the last four months still thinks the constitution has any validity in the minds of politicians.

Did you mean years?



Please enlighten us as to which portions of the constitution were trampled under President Trump[not state legislators/legislations and their disregard for the constitution re: voter laws], Just POTUS.
I'll wait.
[/quote]Please enlighten us as to which portions of the constitution were trampled under President Trump[not state legislators/legislations and their disregard for the constitution re: voter laws], Just POTUS.
I'll wait.[/quote]

I think President Trump made a very good effort to eliminate constitutional violations at the federal level. If we returned to a truly constitutional government 95% of the federal government would vanish. Almost all the Departments of ??????? would vanish. Unelected bureaucrats would not be allowed to make rules and regulations that have the force of law. All firearms regulations would be repealed. Not a bad thing in my opinion but will never happen.
Originally Posted by oldtrapper
Trump and the Republicans could shut it right down by just not showing up. I wonder if Trump is not looking forward to presenting his fraud evidence to the public where thee msm has to cover it. ;-{>8

This “trial” is not about election fraud, it is about Trump being accused of inciting a riot.

The judge at the trial will not allow any evidence outside the scope of the charges which is basically his speech and the timeline between it and the riot.

Maybe he can squeeze in some evidence that it was all staged by Antifa and the Uniparty, but doubtful that Judge Leary will allow it. He certainly will not allow any talk of voter fraud.
Originally Posted by 45_100
[/quote]Please enlighten us as to which portions of the constitution were trampled under President Trump[not state legislators/legislations and their disregard for the constitution re: voter laws], Just POTUS.
I'll wait.


I think President Trump made a very good effort to eliminate constitutional violations at the federal level. If we returned to a truly constitutional government 95% of the federal government would vanish. Almost all the Departments of ??????? would vanish. Unelected bureaucrats would not be allowed to make rules and regulations that have the force of law. All firearms regulations would be repealed. Not a bad thing in my opinion but will never happen.[/quote]
You are content with a government acting outside the Constitution and is therefore treasonous? Or are you unwilling to do anything about it? I'm trying to understand the mentality here.
Originally Posted by Raeford
Originally Posted by JimFromTN
Originally Posted by dassa
I can't believe anyone who has lived through the last four months still thinks the constitution has any validity in the minds of politicians.

Did you mean years?



Please enlighten us as to which portions of the constitution were trampled under President Trump[not state legislators/legislations and their disregard for the constitution re: voter laws], Just POTUS.
I'll wait.




Raeford, Don't bother encouraging this card-carrying moron to use the common sense he was born with.

That part of his brain is no longer functional.
Originally Posted by oldtrapper
Trump and the Republicans could shut it right down by just not showing up. I wonder if Trump is not looking forward to presenting his fraud evidence to the public where thee msm has to cover it. ;-{>8
A senate quorum is a majority, or 51. The problem is that they don't count who's there unless someone requests it. That means that business will continue unless there's 1 republican there to request a count. Since he's there, he's counted too. If all 50 Dems are there, plus the Rep, that's a quorum and the trial goes on.
Incitement of insurrection?


Where is the proof?
Originally Posted by irfubar
denton.
In case you haven't noticed we are in clown world now, anything is possible


An Impeachment is a POLITICAL maneuver to punish someone, in this case it's Donald Trump. It has nothing to do with criminal acts. Well, the democrats are the criminals.

kwg
Posted By: RDW Re: Thinking About "Impeachment" - 01/26/21
How about some deflection and "republicans" file impeachment charges against Zero?
Originally Posted by RDW
How about some deflection and some "republicans" file impeachment against Zero?

Won’t even come to a floor vote in the house.

Didn’t a House Republican just try this with Biden, dead in water as I recall.
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Originally Posted by oldtrapper
Trump and the Republicans could shut it right down by just not showing up. I wonder if Trump is not looking forward to presenting his fraud evidence to the public where thee msm has to cover it. ;-{>8
A senate quorum is a majority, or 51. The problem is that they don't count who's there unless someone requests it. That means that business will continue unless there's 1 republican there to request a count. Since he's there, he's counted too. If all 50 Dems are there, plus the Rep, that's a quorum and the trial goes on.

The Republicans not showing up is exactly how they will get the votes to convict. Right now they have 48 D's & 2 Independents who vote with the D's
You know Romney will vote to convict, he already did once and he won't miss the chance to do it again. So there is their quorum of 51.
They don't need 2/3rd's of 100 Senators to convict, they need 2/3rd's of everyone who shows up to vote!
Article 1 Sec. 3.
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.
If only the D's & the 2 I's & Romney show up, they only need 2/3rd's of 51 or 34 to vote to convict.
Originally Posted by Paul_M
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck



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.
If only the D's & the 2 I's & Romney show up, they only need 2/3rd's of 51 or 34 to vote to convict.


That lil' issue keeps popping up.
Originally Posted by Raeford
Originally Posted by Paul_M
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck



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.
If only the D's & the 2 I's & Romney show up, they only need 2/3rd's of 51 or 34 to vote to convict.


That lil' issue keeps popping up.


That too! But lets be real, they won't let that stop them if they think they can get the votes for conviction.
Their attitude will be convict first, deal with the other issue later if it comes up.
The Republicans need to be pressured to go, participate, and vote not guilty.
Originally Posted by Paul_M
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Originally Posted by oldtrapper
Trump and the Republicans could shut it right down by just not showing up. I wonder if Trump is not looking forward to presenting his fraud evidence to the public where thee msm has to cover it. ;-{>8
A senate quorum is a majority, or 51. The problem is that they don't count who's there unless someone requests it. That means that business will continue unless there's 1 republican there to request a count. Since he's there, he's counted too. If all 50 Dems are there, plus the Rep, that's a quorum and the trial goes on.

The Republicans not showing up is exactly how they will get the votes to convict. Right now they have 48 D's & 2 Independents who vote with the D's
You know Romney will vote to convict, he already did once and he won't miss the chance to do it again. So there is their quorum of 51.
They don't need 2/3rd's of 100 Senators to convict, they need 2/3rd's of everyone who shows up to vote!
Article 1 Sec. 3.
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.
If only the D's & the 2 I's & Romney show up, they only need 2/3rd's of 51 or 34 to vote to convict.

Perfect way for the Republicans to convict, without having to cast a vote.
And that is why they need to be pressured to show up and vote.
If people call and tell them, we know what you are doing by trying to skip the vote, they may feel they need to show up.
If they do skip the vote, they should all be told we won't forget and will do what we can to make sure you get voted out..
Constitution?

The US Constitution gives state legislatures power over elections.
The Pa Constitution puts our elections in our legislature's hands.

The Executive Branch seized control,
The Judicial affirmed it.

And SCOTUS had no issue with all of it.



We don't have no stinikin' constitution!
What I actually said, not how you rearranged it. Sheeesh ;-{>8
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by oldtrapper
Trump and the Republicans could shut it right down by just not showing up. I wonder if Trump is not looking forward to presenting his fraud evidence to the public where thee msm has to cover it. ;-{>8

This “trial” is not about election fraud, it is about Trump being accused of inciting a riot.

The judge at the trial will not allow any evidence outside the scope of the charges which is basically his speech and the timeline between it and the riot.

Maybe he can squeeze in some evidence that it was all staged by Antifa and the Uniparty, but doubtful that Judge Leary will allow it. He certainly will not allow any talk of voter fraud.




Trump is accused of inciting insurrection by telling a lie to the public about election fraud and telling them to fight it like hell. The election is the root of it all. There is no judge.

BTW, the riot preceded the speech completion.

I think the SCOTUS has already weighed in that this is not right/constitutional:

Constitution says Chief Justice presides when it's the president on trial.
Roberts already said he's not presiding because it's not the president being tried.

so, who is being tried? If not President Trump, then who? It can't be citizen Trump, that's not an impeachment.

This is in a weird area, but I think Roberts tipped his hand on the SC view.
Originally Posted by denton
Not an attorney... may be miles off base here:

The Constitution forbids any "bill of attainder". I had to look that one up. It means that no legislature can punish any person or group of people for something they have done in the past. That function belongs to the courts. The Senate and House cannot punish a private citizen.

Donald Trump is now a private citizen.

How is this so-called impeachment not a bill of attainder?


Denton, Have you been drinking? You ordinarily show a disciplined mind. You cannot legally do anything to anyone for what they might do or think with some very specific exceptions. Therefore, every single criminal action against a citizen must be for something he has done in the past. And, indeed, some criminal actions are not subject to a statute of limitations precisely so that people who commit those crimes can be held fully accountable when they are caught. If a president is impeached and removed from office, then he immediately becomes a citizen again and by your above reasoning would then be free and clear in terms of punishment. Similarly, he cannot be punished until he has been convicted and removed from office. The "punishment" available under impeachment is severely constrained by the constitution in comparison to that available in a criminal proceeding against someone because impeachment is designed as a purely political action.

The law is just blind, not stupid. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Impeachment cannot punish as in imprisonment. I would however like to see some legal scholarship applied to treason in time of war by a president which would likely be sequenced as an impeachment, removal from office, indictment on treason charges, trial and conviction followed by execution if so ordered.
Sorry Bob, the SC doesn't get a view on impeachment. there is no appeal.
Quote
The law is just blind, not stupid. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Impeachment cannot punish as in imprisonment. I would however like to see some legal scholarship applied to treason in time of war by a president which would likely be sequenced as an impeachment, removal from office, indictment on treason charges, trial and conviction followed by execution if so ordered.
The constitution give the senate power to remove him from office and possibly bar him from serving again. That's ALL the senate can do. However, the constitution leaves the convicted person open for civil charges and trial, not by congress but by the civil courts.

It's been held that person convicted after impeachment can't appeal. However, that's not really been tested. If congress violates the constitution, the SCOTUS is supposed to rule their actions invalid and in the past they've done so many times. Why wouldn't that hold here?
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
The constitution give the senate power to remove him from office and possibly bar him from serving again. That's ALL the senate can do. However, the constitution leaves the convicted person open for civil charges and trial, not by congress but by the civil courts.

It's been held that person convicted after impeachment can't appeal. However, that's not really been tested. If congress violates the constitution, the SCOTUS is supposed to rule their actions invalid and in the past they've done so many times. Why wouldn't that hold here?


The constitution specifies the procedure for impeachment. Chapter and verse. The constitution only in general and broad terms specifies what may constitute cause for impeachment. Thus, the House of Representatives would have to be incompetent and not have access to a competent attorney in order not follow a pretty simple procedure. The general and very broad definition of impeachable offense makes it next to impossible to wrongly charge the impeached party. So, about the only way for a trial after impeachment to be unconstitutional is for the person presiding over the the trial to engage in or permit blatant unconstitutional action. In the instant trial, Trump was impeached prior to his term expiring for actions committed prior to his leaving office. To not be able to hold the trial deprives the nation of it's ability to hold the president accountable for his ENTIRE term, and deprives the president of his right to answer such charges.(to confront his accuser). Both are long held principles in our legal system.

Undoubtedly the rationale for the Chief Justice presiding at the trial is to assure a trial procedure that passes constitutional muster.

Since an impeachment is a political action by design and not the creation of a law which applies equally to all citizens of the nation, the Supreme Court nor any other court has any say in the trial or it's outcome.
Originally Posted by Bob_H_in_NH

I think the SCOTUS has already weighed in that this is not right/constitutional:

Constitution says Chief Justice presides when it's the president on trial.
Roberts already said he's not presiding because it's not the president being tried.

so, who is being tried? If not President Trump, then who? It can't be citizen Trump, that's not an impeachment.

This is in a weird area, but I think Roberts tipped his hand on the SC view.


BINGO
Posted By: cfran Re: Thinking About "Impeachment" - 01/27/21
Bingo x2

Dems are wasting time and grandstanding for the show.
Originally Posted by MILES58
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
The constitution give the senate power to remove him from office and possibly bar him from serving again. That's ALL the senate can do. However, the constitution leaves the convicted person open for civil charges and trial, not by congress but by the civil courts.

It's been held that person convicted after impeachment can't appeal. However, that's not really been tested. If congress violates the constitution, the SCOTUS is supposed to rule their actions invalid and in the past they've done so many times. Why wouldn't that hold here?


The constitution specifies the procedure for impeachment. Chapter and verse. The constitution only in general and broad terms specifies what may constitute cause for impeachment. Thus, the House of Representatives would have to be incompetent and not have access to a competent attorney in order not follow a pretty simple procedure. The general and very broad definition of impeachable offense makes it next to impossible to wrongly charge the impeached party. So, about the only way for a trial after impeachment to be unconstitutional is for the person presiding over the the trial to engage in or permit blatant unconstitutional action. In the instant trial, Trump was impeached prior to his term expiring for actions committed prior to his leaving office. To not be able to hold the trial deprives the nation of it's ability to hold the president accountable for his ENTIRE term, and deprives the president of his right to answer such charges.(to confront his accuser). Both are long held principles in our legal system.

Undoubtedly the rationale for the Chief Justice presiding at the trial is to assure a trial procedure that passes constitutional muster.

Since an impeachment is a political action by design and not the creation of a law which applies equally to all citizens of the nation, the Supreme Court nor any other court has any say in the trial or it's outcome.
Exactly what "high crime" or "misdemeanor" did President Trump commit?

It could be argued that since the election was fraudulent and President Trump legally won the election, legally he is still President. If they convict him in the Senate, then technically they are kicking him out of office.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Posted By: cfran Re: Thinking About "Impeachment" - 01/27/21
Careful, you are about to get into an argument from one of our classic MN liberals.
MN cheated in the last election too. Deport them all.
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Constitution?

The US Constitution gives state legislatures power over elections.
The Pa Constitution puts our elections in our legislature's hands.

The Executive Branch seized control,
The Judicial affirmed it.

And SCOTUS had no issue with all of it.



We don't have no stinikin' constitution!

Check out H.R.1 at congress.gov you will love it.

Then check H.R. 193, H.R. 237 & H.R. 280
© 24hourcampfire