- 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
0
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:This is not an impeachment. It is a Bill of Attainder. You think Bills of Attainder are Constitutional?
The text tends to indicate that the purpose is to prevent certain persons from holding public office, currently OR in the future.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It simply is not clear whether they intended to give the Senate an option of choosing only one of the two punishments.
and means in addition to
you remember covering conditions in law school? if you cant have the first one then you cant add the second one to it, then it is dismissed
there is nothing “interesting” about this at all and if you tried to present this anywhere else you would get slapped down and laughed at
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:30 pm to supatigah
quote:That is indeed the Strict Construction argument.
you remember covering conditions in law school? if you cant have the first one then you cant add the second one to it, then it is dismissed
I suspect that an Originalist would argue that the Founders CERTAINLY would not have wanted a traitor to be able to seek a return to public office, simply by (temporarily) resigning his position.
quote:The same arguments were presented to the entire Senate in the Belknap impeachment, and they prevailed.
if you tried to present this anywhere else you would get slapped down and laughed at
Like it or not, that case is a form of Senatorial procedural precedent.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:30 pm to AggieHank86
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.
you have been relentlessly posting here for seven years you choad
your shite resume here speaks for itself
now get back to your contracts pile, Suzy in procurement needs those redline updates by 3 today, counselor
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:32 pm to Friedbrie
quote:
How the frick can a non sitting president be impeached?
He can't. Ignore what Aggie says. This is simply a dog and pony show. There is no teeth behind any of this.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
Except you couldn't because there is scant discussion of this particular absurd scenario from any "originalist" or "what were they thinking about" perspective.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:33 pm to supatigah
quote:On average, you post 1000 times more per year than I, my friend.
supatigah
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:34 pm to BugAC
the simple fact that the judge is also on the jury tells you all you need to know about this ridiculous procedure
the Dems sent the JV Squad out there to present this, notice none of the DNC brand names are in front
the Dems sent the JV Squad out there to present this, notice none of the DNC brand names are in front
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:36 pm to supatigah
quote:
the simple fact that the judge is also on the jury tells you all you need to know about this ridiculous procedure
Yup. It's ok though. "Concerned Hank" will try to tell you there is precedence and legally possible. He also thinks Biden getting 80 million legal votes is possible too.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:40 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:You seem to be limiting your sources to legislative history.
Except you couldn't because there is scant discussion of this particular absurd scenario from any "originalist" or "what were they thinking about" perspective.
To investigate the Originalist position, you would look at a far broader range of material.
Set aside that this is Trump (who you love) and that his speech should not give rise to an impeachable offense. I tend to agree with you as to the latter element.
But we are looking at a much broader question.
Let's say that Cyrus Vance did something SERIOUS (e.g. took money from the Iranians), but the House did not learn of it until late 1976 and did not adopt Articles of Impeachment to remove him as SecState until January of 1977, and for logistical reasons the Senate cannot get the trial completed before Reagan is inaugurated.
Puts a different light on the matter, wouldn't you say?
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
On average, you post 1000 times more per year than I, my friend.
a perfect example of your choad nature
I have been here SEVENTEEN years and you have been here 7+
but on the surface your post is “factually” correct
bored lawyers love to play word games on TD
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You seem to be limiting your sources to legislative history.
Says who? Why are you just posting hypotheticals in response?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The question is whether a duly-impeached official can be TRIED on his impeachment after leaving office. Reconstruction-era Senate precedent says “yes,” but SCOTUS has never addressed the question.
When the Chief Justice of SCOTUS refuses to preside over the trial, the SCOTUS has answered.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Let's say that Cyrus Vance did something SERIOUS (e.g. took money from the Iranians), but the House did not learn of it until late 1976 and did not adopt Articles of Impeachment to remove him as SecState until January of 1977, and for logistical reasons the Senate cannot get the trial completed before Reagan is inaugurated.
Puts a different light on the matter, wouldn't you say?
yes hank, since your scenario is a CRIME, Mr Vance would have been tried in criminal court
if DJT committed a crime then DC’s DA should indict him and get to work
but they arent doing that are they? all they care about is disqualification. why is that Hank?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:50 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:I made two unrelated points. Sorry if that was not clear.
Why are you just posting hypotheticals in response?
As to the Originalist analysis, you are correct that this scenario was not addressed in any detail at the Constitutional Convention (or even in the Federalist Papers, to my recollection). But the CONCEPT of "impeachment" has a long history prior to 1789. An Originalist analysis would examine that history in depth, in an effort to determine what the Founders MIGHT have been thinking.
That subjectivity is one of the reasons that I generally prefer Strict Constructionism to Originalism.
In generally, it appears to me that ONE of the purposes for the impeachment provisions were included in the Constitution was to keep Bad Guys out of public office. Respectfully, I think that you are allowing your personal belief that Trump is NOT a Bad Guy to cloud your analysis of how the Constitution would allow the Senate to treat a REAL Bad Guy.
Personally, I agree with your analysis as to THIS officeholder and his two impeachments. I don't think Trump committed an impeachable offense, this time OR last time. I think that the Dems are out-of-line and abusing the process.
That belief makes it harder to NOT allow "bad facts to make bad law," but I AM trying to keep that in mind as I look at this debacle.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:53 pm to Crimson1st
quote:Setting aside blind loyalists, pretty much everyone understands that CJSCOTUS's decision not to participate was based solely upon the fact that Trump will NOT be the sitting president at the time of the Senate trial. That decision has no bearing whatsoever on the issue that we are discussing in this thread.
When the Chief Justice of SCOTUS refuses to preside over the trial, the SCOTUS has answered.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As to the Originalist analysis, you are correct that this scenario was not addressed in any detail at the Constitutional Convention (or even in the Federalist Papers, to my recollection). But the CONCEPT of "impeachment" has a long history prior to 1789. An Originalist analysis would examine that history in depth, in an effort to determine what the Founders MIGHT have been thinking.
The point is anything that could be used for such analysis is scant with regard to THIS SCENARIO. I contend because it was simply never contemplated as part of the "impeachment" of ANY official. That's a refutation of everything you are arguing here.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 12:58 pm to supatigah
quote:You continue to make this "about Trump."
supatigah
I AGREE with most of what you are saying regarding Dem abuse of the process. I AGREE that Trump has likely not committed any impeachable offense.
Remove the orange-tinted glasses, and try to look at the bigger Constitutional picture.
Look at the Vance hypo. Yes, criminal prosecution would have been available. BRD is a tough standard, and he could easily have been acquitted on criminal charges, when he would have been convicted on the much lower BoP in the Senate and thus been eligible to run (for example) for Senate in 1982.
The question is whether the Founders would have wanted THAT question (Vance's future eligibility for elected office) decided by the Senate or by a petit jury.
AGAIN, I do not know the answer. Neither do you. But I suspect that they would have gone with the Senate.
I find it entertaining that I freely-admit NOT knowing an unknowable answer regarding the intent of men dead 200 years, who left no concrete evidence of that intent ... while you seem completely certain that YOU know their intent.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 2/9/21 at 1:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Negative. Some say it was in response to his treatment during the previous impeachment charade. Others say he's a no show because the process is obviously unconstitutional.
pretty much everyone understands that CJSCOTUS's decision not to participate was based solely upon the fact that Trump will NOT be the sitting president
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News