- 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
re: USSC: Requiring Impeachment prior to prosecution has "little support" in the Constitution
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:14 am to CreoleTigerEsq
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:14 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
by pulling an asinine legal theory out of their collective asses r
They did not do this. The NPCs were given a script to repeat by their echo chamber content creators.
0
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Here is some more attention for you
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
2 completely different reports, lol. 1 conservative CajunAngelle and 1 liberal no flow pro.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Actually - reading it now and it is clear there is a distinction.
First of all the matter briefed by Trump obviously concerned a former President - that is the issue the Court was addressing.
Second, Robert's makes clear the distinction when he writes
And further
Seems more than likely that Roberts is talking about the precise situation at hand - a former President relying on the impeachment judgment clause as opposed to a sitting President relying on it.
First of all the matter briefed by Trump obviously concerned a former President - that is the issue the Court was addressing.
Second, Robert's makes clear the distinction when he writes
quote:
And contrary
to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see
Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available
against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike
“the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable
to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The
Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”).
Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution.
And further
quote:
. . . a President who evades impeachemnt 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
Seems more than likely that Roberts is talking about the precise situation at hand - a former President relying on the impeachment judgment clause as opposed to a sitting President relying on it.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:27 am to JimEverett
quote:
Seems more than likely that Roberts is talking about the precise situation at hand - a former President relying on the impeachment judgment clause as opposed to a sitting President relying on it.
Go read the whole part where he addresses "Trump's theory"
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.
He specifically labels impeachment a "political process" and distinguishes it fully from criminal prosecution.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
Impeachment has always been a “test the waters” political ploy.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
That is clearly in the context of "Trump's theory" - which concerns a former President, not a sitting President.
Furthermore, the concern Roberts is addressing: that a President can evade criminal liability simply by avoiding (for one reason or another) the political process of impeachment and conviction - does not apply to the case of a sitting President.
Furthermore, the concern Roberts is addressing: that a President can evade criminal liability simply by avoiding (for one reason or another) the political process of impeachment and conviction - does not apply to the case of a sitting President.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:34 am to JimEverett
quote:
Furthermore, the concern Roberts is addressing: that a President can evade criminal liability simply by avoiding (for one reason or another) the political process of impeachment and conviction - does not apply to the case of a sitting President.
Find the distinction you're claiming within this:
quote:
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.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
deal with it, you loose again its gonna happen some more, shite you may ultimately have a frickin stroke,
Posted on 7/1/24 at 10:58 am to ole man
quote:
deal with it, you loose again
I am not, in fact, Gretchen Whitmer
Posted on 7/1/24 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
The issue itself is the distinction. Roberts is discussing - and made clear by the preceding paragraph[s] - the issue before the court: immunity from prosecution for a former President.
Roberts is concerned with the idea, as is Trump, that a former President can become immune from criminal prosecution just by avoiding the political process of impeachment while in office.
The analysis of the impeachment judgment clause can be (although not necessarily) different in the case of a sitting President - dues in no small part to the different concerns the Court would be wrestling with.
Roberts is concerned with the idea, as is Trump, that a former President can become immune from criminal prosecution just by avoiding the political process of impeachment while in office.
The analysis of the impeachment judgment clause can be (although not necessarily) different in the case of a sitting President - dues in no small part to the different concerns the Court would be wrestling with.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News