- 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: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:05 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:05 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Then “convicted” is superfluous because according to your interpretation I can remove it and it means the same thing.
No, it doesn’t. A person convicted by the senate in an impeachment proceeding can still be prosecuted criminally.
That’s it. That’s what it means. It’s there to prevent double jeopardy application and head off the exact argument you’re trial to make. Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions. The last clause in Art. 1 Sec 3 clause 7 makes that as plain as any statute or legal authority I have ever read.
quote:
I’m going to assume it’s there to ensure that only parties convicted by impeachment are liable for indictment since that is, you know, what it actually says.
But that is literally not what it says. So long as you’re clear on that.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 10:08 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 10:08 am to Indefatigable
quote:
But that is literally not what it says. So long as you’re clear on that.
I can't wait until he links a federal appellate case confirming our (correct) interpretation and destroying his "argument", like he did yesterday.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News