- 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
Dershowitz: Pelosi's Proposal to Withhold Senate Trial Is Unconstitutional
Posted on 12/19/19 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 12/19/19 at 7:26 pm
quote:
Now that the House has impeached President Trump, the question is what happens next. Speaker Pelosi has suggested that she may withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate as part of a negotiating tactic. This ploy drives from an idea put forward by my friend and colleague Laurence Tribe, who has proposed that the Senate not conduct a trial — at least not now.
He would withhold the trial until the Senate agreed to change its rules, or presumably until a new election put many more Democrats in the Senate. Under his proposal, there might never be a Senate trial, but the impeachment would stand as a final and permanent condemnation of President Trump.
It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people
Denying President Trump and the American people a trial in the Senate would constitute a variation on the title of my new book, "Guilt by Accusation."
President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment. It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial.
This would deny him the right to confront his accusers and to disprove the charges against him. Tribe himself uses a variant of this analogy.
Full Article
9
Posted on 12/19/19 at 7:27 pm to RollTide1987
You think she gives a shite
Posted on 12/19/19 at 7:29 pm to RollTide1987
Clear case of REAL obstruction.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 7:39 pm to RollTide1987
I think the correct answer is that he hasn't actually been impeached until the House sends over the Articles of Impeachment.
Until then, it is meaningless bluster.
Until then, it is meaningless bluster.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:13 pm to RollTide1987
Senate can change the rules and force her to make a choice.
Just read they can add a deadline for the house to deliver articles and managers to plead their case. If they miss their deadline it can be dismissed for lack of prosecution or voted on it immediately based on evidence offered , which would be none since they missed the deadline and Trump would not be considered impeached.
Just read they can add a deadline for the house to deliver articles and managers to plead their case. If they miss their deadline it can be dismissed for lack of prosecution or voted on it immediately based on evidence offered , which would be none since they missed the deadline and Trump would not be considered impeached.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:06 pm to M. A. Ryland
quote:
I think the correct answer is that he hasn't actually been impeached until the House sends over the Articles of Impeachment.
The Constitution states that the House "WILL" send articles of impeachment to the Senate. It does not provide a provision for the House to sit on it.
Question is, What will the Senate do? Will they proceed with the trial without the House actually sending the articles of N Peach mint? The House has no choice, but to send them. The Founding Fathers never envisioned that a senile old woman would be inept enough to sit on articles of n peach mint that were passed by the majority of its incompetent members.
The Speaker is usurping powers not granted by the Constitution.
What is the penalty for the Speaker not following the wishes of the incompetent majority of the House?
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:28 am to djmicrobe
quote:
The Constitution states that the House "WILL" send articles of impeachment to the Senate. It does not provide a provision for the House to sit on it.
Sort of like where the Constitution says the Senate will give advice and consent to a president's Supreme Court nomination, but, since there is no time limit on it, the Republicans could sit on Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year.
Does that mean the Democrats can do likewise and sit on the impeachment for a year???
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 12:44 am
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:32 am to texridder
quote:
Does that mean the Democrats can do likewise and sit on the impeachment for a year???
6th amendment bro.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:38 am to RollTide1987
Are we just gonna let this happen? When does the populace take a stand? Minus the insane part.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:47 am to RollTide1987
quote:
it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people
I’ve seen Laurence Tribe’s twitter.
There is nothing ‘good people’ about that man.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 12:51 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Does that mean the Democrats can do likewise and sit on the impeachment for a year???
quote:
6th amendment bro.
I haven't seen where there has been any discussion that the 6th amendment applies to an impeachment proceeding.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:32 am to texridder
From the linked article in the OP
quote:
President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment. It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial. This would deny him the right to confront his accusers and to disprove the charges against him. Tribe himself uses a variant of this analogy. Read Newsmax: Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:40 am to djmicrobe
quote:First, the Pelosi Proposal does seem contrary to the INTENT of the Framers, but I must ask “WHERE does the Constitution uses the term “will” in this context?”
The Constitution states that the House "WILL" send articles of impeachment to the Senate. It does not provide a provision for the House to sit on it.
It does not.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 simply provides that the “House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Like many other areas, the Constitution leaves the details to the discretion of the House — and thus Nancy Pelosi. Just like it leaves the details of any trial to the discretion of the Senate — and thus Mitch McConnell.
Now, we all agreed that Mitch has the discretion to withhold a trial, yet the consensus seems to be that Nancy lacks the discretion to withhold delivery of the Articles of Impeachment. I wonder whether that could be because we LIKE Mitch’s motives, but DISLIKE Nancy’s motives?
But you say that Dershowitz disagrees with Nancy, so our position CANNOT be ideological! I like Dersh and respect his intellect, but he is doing that which we ALWAYS see from advocates of the “living document” school of interpretation — fabricating language which is not found in the document itself.
In any other context, we would deride his position as supporting “judicial activism.”
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:43 am to Robin Masters
quote:Not a “criminal prosecution,” bro.quote:6th amendment bro.
Does that mean the Democrats can do likewise and sit on the impeachment for a year???
quote:But you say
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
quote:That is called an “analogy.”
From the linked article in the OPquote:
President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment. It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial. This would deny him the right to confront his accusers and to disprove the charges against him. Tribe himself uses a variant of this analogy. Read Newsmax: Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!
Comparing an impeachment to a criminal trial is no different then comparing a criminal trial to a civil trial. Yes, there are similarities, but they are entirely different creatures.
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 1:48 am
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:53 am to AggieHank86
Impeachment is for criminal charges correct?
And it’s not a civil court?
It may not be a typical criminal court but it is certainly a type of criminal prosecution. Not sure how you can argue it is anything but a criminal prosecution.
And it’s not a civil court?
It may not be a typical criminal court but it is certainly a type of criminal prosecution. Not sure how you can argue it is anything but a criminal prosecution.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:56 am to Robin Masters
It's simple. You're guilty until proven innocent and good luck with your defense.
The amount of mental gymnastics they're using to spin this is unbelievable. Anyone who supports this is scum.
The amount of mental gymnastics they're using to spin this is unbelievable. Anyone who supports this is scum.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 2:02 am to Robin Masters
quote:By reading the Constitution, which inter alia expressly states that the judgment for impeachment shall be limited to removal from office and thus implicitly precludes all criminal penalties, such as fines and/or imprisonment.
Not sure how you can argue (impeachment) is anything but a criminal prosecution.
quote:Note that this language specifically allows subsequent “indictment, trial and punishment.”. If impeachment were a criminal process, that provision would fall afoul of double jeopardy.
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.
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 2:14 am
Posted on 12/20/19 at 2:04 am to RollTide1987
Why would Dershowitz call this Lawrence Tribe his friend? My “friends” are like minded. My “friends” aren’t democrats anymore, if I’m being honest
Posted on 12/20/19 at 2:25 am to RollTide1987
The Republican minority need to egg that witch on her podium in tomorrow's session first thing and from everyday out until she sends or drops it altogether. 198/97 eggs coming her way each morning might speed things up a bit.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 3:36 am to texridder
quote:
Sort of like where the Constitution says the Senate will give advice and consent to a president's Supreme Court nomination, but, since there is no time limit on it, the Republicans could sit on Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year.
Does that mean the Democrats can do likewise and sit on the impeachment for a year???
You stupid mother frickers conveniently forget that the Republicans did EXACTLY what the democrats said they would do if anybody died in the last year of Bush.
EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAID THEY WOULD DO
You assholes just cannot stand having your horseshite thrown back in your faces.
Now tell us where the Republicans have done anything like this impeachment horse shite.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News