- 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: Jim Jordan: "This is Not Constitutional."
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:42 am to the808bass
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:42 am to the808bass
quote:
Are you suggesting that the writers of the Constitution would be arguing against due process in an impeachment hearing?
I am not suggesting anything, I am flatly stating at the impeachment stage due process does not apply.
You should have no issue proving me wrong, I'll hang up and listen.
3
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:46 am to cave canem
quote:
I am flatly stating at the impeachment stage due process does not apply.
That’s the typical weasel fig answer I would expect from you.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:49 am to the808bass
Cave commie won’t be happy until we are all in camps.
Cave commie, shut up, fig.
Cave commie, shut up, fig.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:50 am to cave canem
quote:
due process does not apply
I stopped reading right there. Thanks for this. I had momentarily forgotten that I lived in North Korea...
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 7:51 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:52 am to the808bass
You are a woefully underqualified junior high school teacher with a double digit IQ, I expect most you encounter IRL treat you far more shabbily.
The real losers are your students.
Still waiting on you to prove yourself correct on your due process claim, show your work teacher.
The real losers are your students.
Still waiting on you to prove yourself correct on your due process claim, show your work teacher.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:52 am to cave canem
quote:
cave canem
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:53 am to cave canem
quote:
underqualified junior high school teacher
Cave commie with the vivid imagination.
For which DMV office do you work?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:54 am to KCT
That's cool and all to have that opinion, but it's wrong.
Current House started it while he was still sitting. It's in play and the constitution has two specified remedies with one currently applicable.
Course it's both remedies if you're one of those Shadow Trump Presidency nutters.
Current House started it while he was still sitting. It's in play and the constitution has two specified remedies with one currently applicable.
Course it's both remedies if you're one of those Shadow Trump Presidency nutters.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:55 am to cave canem
quote:
He is simply co-mingling several things and using key words recognized by everyone that do not apply and hoping the sheep are too lazy to even use Google
this is gold.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:01 am to cave canem
Marbury vs. Madison
Hastings vs. USA
And the Democrats arguments in Clinton’s impeachment.
As you know, there are very few explicit requirements for an impeachment. Three of them. And the Democrats couldn’t even manage the explicit ones.
Lol. I can assure my IQ is the highest. I’ve never taught school. And you’re still a fig.
Hastings vs. USA
And the Democrats arguments in Clinton’s impeachment.
As you know, there are very few explicit requirements for an impeachment. Three of them. And the Democrats couldn’t even manage the explicit ones.
quote:
underqualified junior high school teacher with a double digit IQ, I expect most you encounter IRL treat you far more shabbily.
Lol. I can assure my IQ is the highest. I’ve never taught school. And you’re still a fig.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:02 am to auggie
quote:
Without him presiding, there is no Constitutional trial.
The President of the United States is not on trial. Why would the Chief Justice preside?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:04 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The President of the United States is not on trial. Why would the Chief Justice preside?
Because it’s an Impeachment?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:05 am to the808bass
quote:
Because it’s an Impeachment?
Your point being?
The President of the United States is not being tried. So from a constitutional perspective, I’ll ask again why would the Chief Justice preside?
Article 1, Section 3:
quote:
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:
The President is not being tried. Therefore no CJ. It really is incredibly simple, and a plain language reading of the Constitution.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:07 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:05 am to KCT
There are 4 lights!!
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:19 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The President of the United States is not on trial. Why would the Chief Justice preside?
The Senate is holding the trial Portion of the Impeachment. This is where the senate votes if The President will be found guilty on the articles sent up from the house of representatives. The Constitution lays it out, and states that the Chief Justice of The SCOTUS SHALL preside over this portion of impeachment process, if there is to be one, but since Roberts believes that this is Un-Constitutional, he refused to preside.
Anyhow, this whole waste of time and money, was already dead on arrival in The Senate, because there will not be enough votes to convict on the articles.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:22 am to auggie
quote:
but since Roberts believes that this is Un-Constitutional
Link?
And I love how you guys hide behind Roberts’ supposed “opinion” when it suits you, but eviscerate when his other opinions conflict with yours
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:31 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Link?
Look at your TV. Roberts isn't there. That tells you all you need to know.
quote:
And I love how you guys hide behind Roberts’ supposed “opinion” when it suits you, but eviscerate when his other opinions conflict with yours
Hide behind? There is no hiding, it is the law of the land. I have to live with his opinions, makes no difference if I agree or not, I am subject to his opinions, same as you.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:32 am to cave canem
quote:
I am not suggesting anything, I am flatly stating at the impeachment stage due process does not apply.
You should have no issue proving me wrong, I'll hang up and listen.
If the Congress can completely deprive the Presidency of due process in an impeachment and the subsequent trial, then there's no check on the Congress' ability to simply remove Presidents for any reason at all.
Sure, impeachment is a political process, but only partially so. The goal in this case is not to remove Trump from office, since he's already out of office - it is to prevent him from ever holding office again, presumably even for local dog catcher (that would depend, I suppose, on the final resolution of the Senate vote determining what the punishment should be if there is a Senate conviction). This latter instance is the removal of the right or privilege of a qualified American to run for federal office of any sort. That clearly goes beyond the simple "it's politics" argument, and arguably would be depriving a US Citizen of a right.
Further, the Constitution says that when the President is tried after being impeached the Chief Justice SHALL preside. An argument can be lobbed, of course, that Trump is no longer the President, and the Chief Justice does not have to preside. One could also argue that the Constitution simply did not contemplate former Presidents being tried at all, and therefore this is a sham.
Another argument that fails can be made that the Chief Justice has not always presided over impeachment trials in the Senate - but that argument neglects to mention that those impeachments were not of the President. So that argument is vapid.
It could also be argued that since Trump was impeached AS PRESIDENT, then this trial is of course an impeachment OF A PRESIDENT in his capacities as PRESIDENT, not a former President, although the trial was delayed beyond the end of the President's term. Trump is being tried in his capacity as PRESIDENT at the time he was impeached.
Rehnquist presided over Clinton's trial.
Chase presided over Johnson's impeachment trial.
Nixon's trial never took place.
So there's no precedent to reference at all for someone other than the Chief Justice to preside over this trial.
It's a complete sham.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:35 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:33 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The President of the United States is not being tried.
If the President is not being tried, then there is no impeachment. The Constitution specifically lays out who is to be tried, and "private citizen" isn't one of them.
It is wildly inconsistent to argue that Trump should be impeached because the cause of action started when he was President, then argue that he isn't afforded the procedural rules applicable to a President because he is now a private citizen at the time of the trial.
What if the impeachment started while in office, then continued passed his term? Does the CJ then step down since, constitutionally, he can't preside over the impeachment of a private citizen?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:33 am to auggie
quote:
states that the Chief Justice of The SCOTUS SHALL preside over this portion of impeachment process,
No, it doesn’t. It says that the CJ shall preside when POTUS is being tried. POTUS is not being tried.
quote:
since Roberts believes that this is Un-Constitutional
He never once said or indicated this in any way, shape, or form.
quote:
he refused to preside
Correct. The President is not on trial, and so the Chief Justice has no reason to preside.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News