- 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 8:37 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:37 am to Robin Masters
quote:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
Right, it is up to congress to get him removed from office through impeachment and then allow for a criminal trial to take place. That is the method available to provide check and balances of a president. SFP knows this, but he wants the DOJ to be able to bring a president up on charges and trial even as a sitting president.
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:39 am to Robin Masters
quote:
You’re such a disingenuousness hack and now I know you didn’t read the article because he addresses those rulings and why they aren’t relevant to the president.
His arguments are shite and have never been adopted by any court of note, for that reason.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I specified "in a criminal case".
The Constitution clearly distinguishes the impeachment-removal process from criminal process. They are not the same thing and do not overlap.
While Congress cannot prosecute a criminal case against a president, they can remove him from office, which is enough to make the whole “king” argument moot.
A “check” against any branch of government is not the power to imprison them, but to either nullify their power or remove them from their position.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
His arguments are shite and have never been adopted by any court of note, for that reason.
Yeah, federal judge and law scholar with numerous essays published vs a fake lawyer with nothing to do on a Monday morning than bicker on a political board.
Maybe it’s you dumbass.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:42 am to JellyRoll
quote:
Right, it is up to congress to get him removed from office through impeachment and then allow for a criminal trial to take place.
Literally not what it says.
quote:
SFP knows this, but he wants the DOJ to be able to bring a president up on charges and trial even as a sitting president.
Bro I'm arguing based on the words of the Constitution and actual court cases on the subject. You're just making shite up.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:43 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
While Congress cannot prosecute a criminal case against a president, they can remove him from office, which is enough to make the whole “king” argument moot.
A “check” against any branch of government is not the power to imprison them, but to either nullify their power or remove them from their position.
This is correct and why the impeachment-removal process is purely political (and has no overlap with criminal prosecution).
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:44 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Yeah, federal judge and law scholar with numerous essays published vs a fake lawyer with nothing to do on a Monday morning than bicker on a political board.
What does this have to do with his argument being universally rejected by courts?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What does this have to do with his argument being universally rejected by courts?
Read the article.
And if this law has been universally agreed upon why is the USSC hearing the case?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:52 am to Robin Masters
quote:
And if this law has been universally agreed upon why is the USSC hearing the case?
It hasn't come up with a President before. Nixon was pardoned before it could possibly be litigated (like his civil cases that are the backbone of the arguments in this case).
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It hasn't come up with a President before.
One more time for the people in the back:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
-Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Papers 69
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:12 am to Robin Masters
What does one of the founding fathers and framers of the constitution know?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:16 am to GumboPot
quote:
I think Andrew Weissmann's frustration is that congress moves too slow or never moves to check the executive. He want's the power to check the executive coming from the DOJ.
Considering DOJ falls within the executive branch, he's effectively advocating for a 4th branch of government.
The intelligence community and the media are the 4th and 5th branches, so DOJ would have to be #6.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:21 am to JellyRoll
Nothing in that quote creates a requirement.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:23 am to Robin Masters
quote:
One more time for the people in the back:
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
-Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Papers 69
The word "afterwards" did not make it into the Constitution.
quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:25 am to Indefatigable
Even that quote doesn't state, or imply, a causal relationship/requirement.
I just read that portion of the Federalist Paper from where it emerges and he's countering the liability of a President to the British monarchy. to distinguish the two.
He's just using efficient language to say that the Constitution has a remedy and the President would still even face potential criminal liability, as opposed to the monarch.
I just read that portion of the Federalist Paper from where it emerges and he's countering the liability of a President to the British monarchy. to distinguish the two.
He's just using efficient language to say that the Constitution has a remedy and the President would still even face potential criminal liability, as opposed to the monarch.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:26 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The word "afterwards" did not make it into the Constitution.
Party convicted
Convicted of what?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:36 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Party convicted
Convicted of what?
Convicted in the impeachment trial by the Senate of whatever act(s) the House chose to impeach them for.
The Judgment Clause does two things (i) limits the punishment in an impeachment trial to removal and disqualification and (ii) expressly exclude the application of double jeopardy in a criminal prosecution for the same act.
That's it. Plain and simple, right there in the text.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 9:40 am
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:40 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Convicted in the impeachment trial by the Senate.
If he isn’t first impeached can he be a party convicted?
No.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:43 am to Robin Masters
quote:
If he isn’t first impeached can he be a party convicted? No.
Right…..
What is it that you think that means? Because it doesn’t mean that no impeachment means no criminal prosecution, if that is what you are going for. The clause simply makes plain that impeachment conviction does not preclude criminal prosecution. It does not make impeachment a prerequisite for criminal prosecution.
It’s right there for you, in very plain English.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:58 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s right there for you, in very plain English.
Then “convicted” is superfluous because according to your interpretation I can remove it and it means the same thing.
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.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News