- 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
Impeachment After Removal from Office
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:00 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:00 am
I've seen people state it's not constitutional to try an impeachment after someone leaves office. At the same time, Article 1 Section III Clause 7 states, "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." Being barred or disqualified from future office is absolutely a punishment in the constitution for impeachment.
Given that being disqualified from future office is a potential punishment, how does it make sense that someone can't be tried once they are out of office? If that's the case, someone could resign a position minutes before they are convicted in the Senate and the conviction could not be done nor the future disqualification from office. It seems odd the framers would have designed a punishment which someone could escape by resigning right before being convicted. Thoughts?
Given that being disqualified from future office is a potential punishment, how does it make sense that someone can't be tried once they are out of office? If that's the case, someone could resign a position minutes before they are convicted in the Senate and the conviction could not be done nor the future disqualification from office. It seems odd the framers would have designed a punishment which someone could escape by resigning right before being convicted. Thoughts?
26
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:01 am to LSU2ALA
Peaceful transfer of power my arse.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:01 am to LSU2ALA
It's not impeachment, but conviction.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:02 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
If that's the case, someone could resign a position minutes before they are convicted in the Senate and the conviction could not be done nor the future disqualification from office. It seems odd the framers would have designed a punishment which someone could escape by resigning right before being convicted. Thoughts?
Nixon basically did that, didn't he?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:02 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
Thoughts
Unity
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:03 am to LSU2ALA
The word "and" means something.
If it said "or", then it would constitutional to impeach after office.
If it said "or", then it would constitutional to impeach after office.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:04 am to LSU2ALA
I think the argument would be they could still impeach Trump to disqualify him from holding office in the future, regardless of whether he's currently President or not.
"and" in this context could be argued to mean there are two penalties possible from impeachment.
So, it comes down to two cases, arguably, where impeachment could be used:
1) to remove someone from office, or
2) to prevent that person from holding office in the future.
Impeachment cannot extend further than 1) or 2).
"and" in this context could be argued to mean there are two penalties possible from impeachment.
So, it comes down to two cases, arguably, where impeachment could be used:
1) to remove someone from office, or
2) to prevent that person from holding office in the future.
Impeachment cannot extend further than 1) or 2).
This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 9:05 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:04 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
It seems odd the framers would have designed a punishment which someone could escape by resigning right before being convicted. Thoughts?
You mean just like Richard Nixon did???
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:04 am to Shorter Yards
quote:
Nixon basically did that, didn't he?
Correct, though he did so before the charges made it to the full House for a vote.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:05 am to Shorter Yards
Correct. Either way he was out of office
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:05 am to LSU2ALA
nancy hates him
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:05 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
removal from Office, and disqualification
An essential (necessary) function of the act IS "removal from Office."
Impeaching someone not "in Office" is an absurdity. Should I be able to lobby Congress to have them move to impeach you because I think you're an idiot and shouldn't be able to run for president at any point in the future?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:06 am to Shorter Yards
quote:Cut a deal for Ford to pardon him if he resigned. Why the Senate chose not to hold the trial would require a little research.
Nixon basically did that, didn't he?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:06 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
It seems odd the framers would have designed a punishment which someone could escape by resigning right before being convicted. Thoughts?
Do you think the framers intended for a house and senate majorities in one party to be able to use impeachment in a partisan way to prevent their political opponents from being able to run for office? Seems like they should be able to convince the public not to vote for someone, not remove the ability for the public to vote for such person.
And, yes, if you resign before the senate has to go on record with their votes, then you don’t know whether you would have actually been removed or not. You now have to try to convince the voters to elect you again, if you so desire. If the senate gets all the way to removing you from office, then you’re prevented from running again.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:08 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
You mean just like Richard Nixon did???
They didn't attempt to impeach him afterwards so we don't know. Keep in mind that Nixon was not impeached when he left office. Trump has been. The question is whether or not you can hold the trial after he is out.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:08 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
. It seems odd the framers would have designed a punishment which someone could escape by resigning right before being convicted. Thoughts?
Hanging by the neck till dead come to mind... when asking if there was truly a get out of jail card.
This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 9:12 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:08 am to LSU2ALA
So just to be clear.
You think that if Repubs regain control, they should be able to impeach Obama (even if it is 20 years from now) and remove secret service protection for him?
You think that if Repubs regain control, they should be able to impeach Obama (even if it is 20 years from now) and remove secret service protection for him?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:08 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
It's not impeachment, but conviction.
That's an excellent point. I should have worded that better.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:09 am to LSU2ALA
The socialist/totalitarians are driving to make an example of Trump...book it
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:09 am to LSU2ALA
You think they didn’t consider that scenario?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News