- 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 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What specific language makes a Senate "conviction" a requirement to future prosecution?
When they define the party eligible for indictment, ect as the “party convicted”. Who else besides someone convicted by the senate would this apply to?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:02 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
When they define the party eligible for indictment
When do they define "the party eligible for indictment" or discuss eligibility specifically?
quote:
Who else besides someone convicted by the senate would this apply to?
The entire clause is written from the POV of conviction to show the distinction between the impeachment-removal process and criminal process. It's much more effective and efficient that way, as the Senate "conviction" is the only act in the removal process that has any actual effects.
The problem is that you're using to to imply, without any evidence, an exclusivity and association. Your analysis requires a lot of words not in the actual constitution (see above, where you fill in a gap of lacking language by using other language that does not exist in the document)
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:06 pm to Robin Masters
Also, I will repeat this since you ignored it:
You do know this clause isn't specific to the President, right? People have been impeached and removed in real cases.
How was Hastings removed by the Senate AFTER he was acquitted in criminal court, if your stance is that a conviction by the Senate is required first prior to criminal prosecution?
quote:
Look at Alcee Hastings.
1. Acquitted at criminal trial in 1983
2. Impeached and removed in 1989 for overlapping behavior to the 1983 trial
If your system is correct, how in the hell did THAT happen?
You do know this clause isn't specific to the President, right? People have been impeached and removed in real cases.
How was Hastings removed by the Senate AFTER he was acquitted in criminal court, if your stance is that a conviction by the Senate is required first prior to criminal prosecution?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News