- 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: Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:05 am to SEC. 593
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:05 am to SEC. 593
quote:
Reading the unbolded clause there to me is key because that is one sentence in full. The bolded (imo) is stating that the impeachment trial is not the full extent of the legal process and only serves as the conduit of removal from office
"But the party CONVICTED"
Impeachment = Indictment by House (essentially, a grand jury)
The Senate conducts the trial and CONVICTS (or acquits).
Thus, only after that process does the person impeached become "the party convicted" and only at that point are they subject to the other processes.
2
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:03 am to udtiger
quote:
"But the party CONVICTED"
Impeachment = Indictment by House (essentially, a grand jury)
The Senate conducts the trial and CONVICTS (or acquits).
Thus, only after that process does the person impeached become "the party convicted" and only at that point are they subject to the other processes.
You are adding intent that isn't there. It clearly allows the judicial check preventing the argument the legislative punishment is the sole punishment. It does not indicate it is meant to work the other direction, nothing in the texts indicates that if the legislative check is not used the judicial check no longer exists. The idea of 2 checks on each branch is a core principle, if the intent was to make one of those checks dependent on the other it would have been presented in clear language.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:28 am to udtiger
quote:
"But the party CONVICTED"
Impeachment = Indictment by House (essentially, a grand jury)
The Senate conducts the trial and CONVICTS (or acquits).
Thus, only after that process does the person impeached become "the party convicted" and only at that point are they subject to the other processes.
I agree. It states specifically what further action could be taken on the "convicted", but says nothing about the person "not convicted" because there is no further action to be had.
As I stated earlier, the founding fathers never imagined a president impeached but not convicted would ever have to answer the same charge after office. I understand impeachment is not a legal criminal proceeding, but it's the official proceeding used to determine wrong doing of those holding the highest positions of our nation. That should carry enough weight that a reasonable person wouldn't attempt to charge the accused again for that which he was previously "found innocent".
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 9:32 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News