- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/9/21 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
dp
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 11:00 am
0
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:21 am to Friedbrie
quote:
How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?
Why not? Women can have penises and men can get pregnant.
Think I'll identify as a 68 year old and apply for social security....
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:23 am to Wtodd
quote:The text tends to indicate that the purpose is to prevent certain persons from holding public office, currently OR in the future.quote:It's still unconstitutional bc the PURPOSE of the trial is to remove a sitting President and NOTHING else.
The question is whether a duly-impeached official can be TRIED on his impeachment after leaving office. Reconstruction-era Senate precedent says “yes,”
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
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:27 am to Friedbrie
on the upside, Clinton and Obama should be very worried
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:30 am to Friedbrie
He can't be impeached. It's a collassal waste of time and money.
Dems gonna Dem.
Dems gonna Dem.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:37 am to Friedbrie
quote:
How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?
We now live in a post-legal, kangaroo court society. They will do as they please, and we will take it and like it.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:43 am to Indefatigable
quote:If you can get an impeachment through in time, have at it. If they’ve committed a crime, you can charge them with a crime. That’s not subject to term dates. That’s what the real joke of this whole thing is. If Democrats were serious about incitement, they could press charges outside of impeachment. But they won’t, because this is all an elaborate Soviet show trial.
So federal officials should have free reign for the last few weeks of their terms? Why would the same principle not apply? The framework clearly did not intend for lame ducks to be untouchable or their actions unsanctionable.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:55 am to Wtodd
quote:
It's still unconstitutional bc the PURPOSE of the trial is to remove a sitting President and NOTHING else.
Not necessarily true. It is also to prevent him from holding public office in the future.
remove, and prevent,I believe
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:56 am to 2020_reVISION
quote:
Not necessarily true. It is also to prevent him from holding public office in the future.
Nope. The requires a separate vote.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:57 am to Friedbrie
It is bullshite but now we can finally go after that Fillmore cocksucker!
and do like England and dig him up and send his pieces to the 4 corners of the land!
This is horse shite and anybody justifying it is full if shite
and do like England and dig him up and send his pieces to the 4 corners of the land!
This is horse shite and anybody justifying it is full if shite
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 11:59 am
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:57 am to hogcard1964
quote:
He can't be impeached. It's a collassal waste of time and money.
He already has been. Twice. He's forever twice impeached (as of today... subject to change down the road when they impeach him again for something stupid.)
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:59 am to AggieHank86
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
Yep, now weaponizes impeachment. If Ted Cruz or Rand Paul run in 2024 and the Dems hold both houses, they could conceivably use it to prevent them from running. Obviously they’d need 67 votes, but with clowns like Romney, who knows.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:00 pm to 2020_reVISION
quote:
It is also to prevent him from holding public office in the future.
But that's not the intent; the intent is to remove a sitting US President for crimes against the US.....as in treason, etc. Trust me IF the Senate could prove that a sitting US President committed treason, he ain't getting elected shite after that.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:01 pm to AggieHank86
removal from office AND disqualification not and/or
so he can not be removed from office, the entire exercise is moot
SCOTUS hasnt ruled on this but Roberts refused to participate so in effect they have ruled
so he can not be removed from office, the entire exercise is moot
SCOTUS hasnt ruled on this but Roberts refused to participate so in effect they have ruled
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:06 pm to Wtodd
Get used to this. If the Republicans ever regain control, they can impeach Obama for Benghazi, Biden for the Ukraine/Hunter and Harris for inciting violence. Should just put it on TLC and have a weekly episode.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:07 pm to AURaptor
quote:No former officeholder has any reason to "worry." Trump was impeached while he remained in office.
Clinton and Obama should be very worried
The Constitutional question is whether he can be TRIED after leaving office, after being impeached while IN office.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:08 pm to supatigah
quote:
removal from office AND disqualification not and/or
It was curious the words he chose NOT to emphasize.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:20 pm to Y.A. Tittle
aggiehank is a choad
I worked closely with some guys that were in house counsel at our company
they all hated their jobs, several of them point blank said their career path was not what they went to law school and set out to do but they were trapped by debt, family obligations etc
what was really funny to me was they would argue topics and news and act like they were oliver wendell holmes on the dumbest shite. playing with semantics, twisting other’s words, obfuscating, etc
hank reminds me of those guys
I worked closely with some guys that were in house counsel at our company
they all hated their jobs, several of them point blank said their career path was not what they went to law school and set out to do but they were trapped by debt, family obligations etc
what was really funny to me was they would argue topics and news and act like they were oliver wendell holmes on the dumbest shite. playing with semantics, twisting other’s words, obfuscating, etc
hank reminds me of those guys
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:20 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:It is actually an interesting question.
It was curious the words he chose NOT to emphasize.
If they had used "or," we would know that they intended for the Senate to have access to only one of the two punishments. Use of the word "and" CLEARLY means that they wanted both to be available as to any impeachment. It simply is not clear whether they intended to give the Senate an OPTION of choosing only one of the two punishments.
An Originalist would look to "what were they thinking about," while a Strict Constructionist would look only at the words, as they were used in the late 18th Century. We could spend PAGES looking at both approaches.
As I have said several times, I do not KNOW the answer, which is why it is an interesting question. Questions with an objectively-known answer are boring.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:22 pm to supatigah
quote:Whereas you just remind me of a number of folks I have known who allow themselves conduct biased analysis based upon the answer that they WANT to find, rather than looking objectively for the best answer.
I worked closely with some guys that were in house counsel at our company
they all hated their jobs, several of them point blank said their career path was not what they went to law school and set out to do but they were trapped by debt, family obligations etc
what was really funny to me was they would argue topics and news and act like they were oliver wendell holmes on the dumbest shite. playing with semantics, twisting other’s words, obfuscating, etc
hank reminds me of those guys
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 12:25 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News