- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which language creates a requirement that the above "conviction" is required for a criminal trial?
Why would the following clause be needed at all then?
2
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:38 pm to moneyg
quote:
Why would the following clause be needed at all then?
It wouldnt. In fact the only reason it exists is to define what the party convicted by the senate might face. Thats why they use a colon and then start the clause with “but” (because they are explaining what happens once the party is convicted).
Another way to say it would be:
Impeachment can only result in loss of your job BUT once you are impeached you can be prosecuted for your crimes.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:42 pm to moneyg
quote:
Why would the following clause be needed at all then?
The one clarifying that "conviction" is not one for criminal matters, ie, double jeopardy does not apply?
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News