- 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 9:22 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:22 am to Indefatigable
quote:You are repeating yourself. It is pointless. Some people want to learn. Others do not.
Indefatigable
Trump was “the President” when impeached by the House.
Trump is no longer “the President” at the time of the (non-judicial) Senate trial.
This is painfully clear to anyone who WANTS to understand.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:24 am
1
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:24 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Donald Trump is NOT the President
So he cannot be tried. What office, then, are you trying him for holding? He holds no current office, ergo there can be no trial.
If you argue that he's being tried pursuant to his role as President, then the Chief Justice must preside.
Pick one.
Further, the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Constitution states:
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Mentions nothing about former Presidents. And lest you try to draw a distinction here between the House's role in the technical impeachment and the Senate's role in trying the case and passing down judgement, the Senate's role is implicit in that phrase because the Senate, NOT THE HOUSE, has the power to remove Trump from office.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:29 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:26 am to BiteMe2020
quote:There is actually a reasoned argument in support of this point. The answer is a close call.
He holds no current office, ergo there can be no trial.
quote:This is just foot-stomping.
If you argue that he's being tried pursuant to his role as President, then the Chief Justice must preside.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
This is just foot-stomping.
I guess the word "SHALL" in the Constitution is just a mild suggestion, and not actual law. Which is the way most commie bastards read the Constitution.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:29 am to AggieHank86
quote:
painfully clear to anyone
So Turley and Dershowitz are pretending to have a different legal interpretation. Interesting.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The answer is a close call.
Article II:
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
It's not a close call. There is no language suggesting "Former President" shall be removed upon conviction. Not only is the plain language clear that former Presidents could not be convicted, your reading doesn't even make any sense. Why would a former President need to be removed?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:34 am to the808bass
quote:Please link to your source for asserting that these two fellows disagree as to whether CJOTUS Roberts must preside over THIS Senate trial. I have not seen that. I would be FLOORED if your assertion is accurate.
So Turley and Dershowitz are pretending to have a different legal interpretation. Interesting.
I would not be surprised at all if they disagree as to whether is it Constitutional to try the case against a person who has already left office. I have said repeatedly that THIS question is a close call that could go either way.
EDIT
(1) Dershowitz says that Roberts does NOT preside.
(2) Turley agrees.
When these two gentlemen agree, it seems safe to posit that this is most-likely the law and that all the foot-stomping by Trump acolytes on this forum is .... mistaken.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 10:06 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:35 am to the808bass
quote:
So Turley and Dershowitz are pretending to have a different legal interpretation. Interesting.
No, but they definitely have their market cornered.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:38 am to Stan Switek
quote:You are absolutely correct, as to removal from office.
There is no language suggesting "Former President" shall be removed upon conviction.
You overlook the OTHER remedy ... preclusion from holding office in the FUTURE.
I have no interest in debating this point with you, because it is completely moot. Trump will never be convicted by the Senate. There will be 52-53 votes against him ... far less than the requisite 67.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 10:37 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I have said repeatedly that THIS question is a close call that could go either way.
This, IMHO is the question that needs to be resolved. But, given the current state of the US, it will NOT be resolved in a legal manner, it will be resolved in a political manner, which is a huge shame.
I personally think they could have gone ahead with the trial legally, but as a strict point, Roberts did not have the right to not preside. It's his Constitutional duty. It wasn't his choice. There is (apparently) no legal precedent for the Chief Justice to simply say, "I don't want to preside".
Of course, Roberts is a coward and a douchebag, so there's that.
The fact that he did not preside, and the Senate holds the trial anyway, should be grounds in later decisions to vacate the Senate decision on a technical error.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:41 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You overlook the OTHER remedy ... preclusion from holding office in the FUTURE.
I don't think that's a remedy from impeachment specifically. The Senate would vote a second time after conviction to preclude Trump from holding a future office, which has been done in the past to federal judges but obviously not to former Presidents. It's highly doubtful it would go unchallenged but like you said, getting to that point is doubtful.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:45 am to cave canem
quote:
Either he is woefully ignorant or he is trying to keep the wool pulled down tightly over his sheep's eyes.
More proof that liberals are some of the dumbest and most gullible people on the planet.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 10:48 am to Indefatigable
quote:
who cares about the show trial?
quote:
the show trial
quote:it’s remarkable how easily this phrase spilled off of your keyboard.
show trial
This is what the US has become.
Your reaction:
quote:
who cares
Posted on 2/10/21 at 10:52 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
ZappBrannigan
You, hank, and that cave canem person know that this whole impeachment process is a fricking sham. What the frick are they even trying to impeach him for?? If they are going to try to falsely apply these laws to Trump, why have the dems skated by without any repercussions?
But no. Y’all rather sit here and play this stupid legal game of ‘gotcha’... there is zero fricking reason for this whole sham to be happening right now. It’s complete bullshite and you fricking know it
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 10:56 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 10:57 am to the808bass
When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside
Just noticed the rhyme
the Chief Justice shall preside
Just noticed the rhyme
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 11:11 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:01 am to TheRouxGuru
quote:Substantively, I certainly agree that the whole thing is pointless. The Senate will never convict.
You, hank, and that cave canem person know that this whole impeachment process is a fricking sham.
Just like the Dems MUST know that they will never convict, most of these pre-Trump posters simply CANNOT be dumb enough to believe the things they are arguing on the various procedural points.
It is entertaining to watch people making completely erroneous Constitutional arguments, just because they love Trump.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Just like the Dems MUST know that they will never convict, most of these pre-Trump posters simply CANNOT be dumb enough to believe the things they are arguing on the various procedural points.
Feel free to call Turley and Dershowitz dumb, that would be entertaining.
Dershowitz
Turley
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:18 am to Stan Switek
quote:Those articles address a completely different issue. In this thread we have been addressing primarily the question of whether CJOTUS is required to preside over this Senate trial. See my link above. Both Turley and Dershowitz agree with me and Indefatiguable that he is NOT required to preside. Yet our usual cast of Trump sycophants continue to argue to the contrary.
Feel free to call Turley and Dershowitz dumb, that would be entertaining
On the issue of whether a person who was impeached while in office can be TRIED after leaving office, let's look at Turley's exact words, since he specifically addressed that issue:
quote:This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for the past month.
This week, a group of scholars wrote an open letter endorsing the constitutional basis for trying former President Donald Trump in a retroactive impeachment trial. The letter contains many individuals who I know and respect. I encourage you to read their case for such retroactive impeachment. As I have said in every column and posting on this subject, this is a close question upon which people of good-faith can disagree.
If you had bothered to READ your Dershowitz link, you would have seen that he was addressing the Belknap scenario in which a person is impeached by the House when they are NOT holding public office.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 11:29 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:18 am to Stan Switek
quote:
Feel free to call Turley and Dershowitz dumb, that would be entertaining.
Dershowitz
Turley
hahahahahahahaha
Our local lawyer assholes is like every other lawyer a-hole.
He will ardently argue a point, then if he happened to start getting paid by the other side somehow he would argue that.
ALWAYS comes down in the same political direction
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:28 am to AggieHank86
quote:
See my link above. Both Turley and Dershowitz agree with me and Indefatiguable that he is NOT required to preside.
No they don't. Dershowitz doesn't even believe a trial is Constitutional, much less answering a question regarding who should preside over it. CJ is not required to preside because there should be no trial to begin with.
Turley reaches the same conclusion under a textual analysis, concluding that the dangers of impeaching a private citizen:
"Under this approach, any new Congress could come into power and set about disqualifying opponents from public office despite their being private citizens. A Republican Congress could have retroactively impeached Barack Obama or retried Bill Clinton. They could insist that there is no escaping impeachment by merely leaving office. That is why, even if the Senate does not view this as extraconstitutional, it should view this trial as constitutionally unsound."
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News