- 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
USSC: Requiring Impeachment prior to prosecution has "little support" in the Constitution
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:42 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:42 am
quote:
Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.
The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “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.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted.
quote:
The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution.
Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.
12
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
In short, you said impeachment and conviction not required for criminal prosecution?
Many agreed with you
Many agreed with you
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:47 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
In short, you said impeachment and conviction not required for criminal prosecution?
Correct
quote:
Many agreed with you
Correct, also. I was not the only one.
I didn't even catch this in the main thread and had someone else who supported the position point it out.
I made this thread to not muck up the big thread, since it's a separate discussion.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
How much time did you spend consulting with the justices on this ruling?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
"little support"
So it's greater than zero.
So it's greater than zero.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
I am convinced that without Tigerdroppings you would be part of the suicide statistics. I plead with the admins to never ban you, because, no matter how annoying and weird you are, I would not like to see you off yourself.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:50 am to TrueTiger
That's the nice, appellate writing way of saying "this is a stupid argument"
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 9:51 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.
Regardless, it should be in the constitution because it makes sense.
Right now the judicial is checking the executive in terms of official and unofficial acts.
The legislative should play a role. I guess they can...all they have to do is pass law.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:52 am to TrueTiger
quote:
"little support"
So it's greater than zero.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
Is a distinction made between a sitting President and a former President?
I think the argument that an impeachment and conviction is necessary for a sitting President to face criminal charges seems like a decent argument - just seems like a protection from rogue state prosecutors among other things.
As far as a former President like Trump - the argument does seem silly.
I think the argument that an impeachment and conviction is necessary for a sitting President to face criminal charges seems like a decent argument - just seems like a protection from rogue state prosecutors among other things.
As far as a former President like Trump - the argument does seem silly.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
I keed, I keed.
But between this and Fischer last week, Jack's DC case is very weak sauce.
But between this and Fischer last week, Jack's DC case is very weak sauce.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:57 am to JimEverett
quote:
Is a distinction made between a sitting President and a former President?
No.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's the nice, appellate writing way of saying "this is a stupid argument"
It was a punt. SCOTUS said you are not going to force us to pigeon hole this ruling to one side or the other because it common sense.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
made this thread to not muck up the big thread, since it's a separate discussion.
You've earned it
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:01 am to fwtex
quote:
It was a punt.
The fact that the issue was not before the court and they addressed it specifically in the majority opinion is the opposite of a punt
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
So Bush's boy found little support, yet Roe had none!!
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 10:08 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:10 am to SlowFlowPro
You made this thread to self aggrandize nothing more let’s stop pretending
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:10 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
made this thread to pat myself on the back, since my worldview is getting buttfricked in the other threads.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:13 am to doublecutter
quote:
How much time did you spend consulting with the justices on this ruling?
He really didn't have to consult with them at all.
Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how Congress and the impeachment process works, within the framework of understanding Congress' role as a legislative authority (a lawmaking authority) and not law enforcement authority, could have arrived at the same conclusion.
It's just the idiots on here who thought that they hit the high score by pulling an asinine legal theory out of their collective asses regarding impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News