Posted on 01/23/2021 12:38:04 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator
What does the US Constitution say about removing a president who is out of office?
And who presides over this farce? The Constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over a trial of the "president". BUT TRUMP is now a private citizen. Joe Biden is president.
Nothing.
And if it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not constitutional.
This is vindictiveness played in fear that he will return.
I’ve read the Articles of impeachment. It seems they can impeach people and put in the conviction that they can’t serve again. However I don’t think they have ever impeached anyone that wasn’t in office. Since it takes 67 in the Senate to convict, let me see the 17 republicans with the gonads to say 74000000 voters were wrong.
The secretary of war under Grant was impeached after he resigned.
But he was acquitted in the Senate trial because a majority didn’t think a it was constitutional.
That’s what I think is motivating this - that Trump will be back. That shows how weak and insecure the new rulers feel.
It’s out of fear that he’s still
the president, and he’s capable
of making their lives pure hell.
Sorry about that. Murkowski and Collins are women so them having gonads would be inappropriate.
But the Constitution says: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”. It doesn’t say “when the former president ...”
I’m asking specifically about presidential impeachment. The Constitution is pretty explicit, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”
I’ve been saying Trump is president. He won. The cheater can pretend.
The Dems agree it seems.
The excuse for impeaching William W. Belknap was that he resigned for the purpose of evading impeachment.
Exactly, they didn’t think they had jurisdiction and they were right.
A “sidebar moderator” post?
Bizarre.
Important topic, but still.
Interesting point!
Things are a little slow ;-)
Who’s going to stop them? The Supreme Court? You think so?
Their has been a precedent where a secretary of war under Grant was impeached and tried after he resigned. He was found not guilty in the Senate. Someone posted this information and I will acknowledge them when I check my posts
Okay, that implies that those bringing charges felt the accused was guilty and justice demanded punishment. Today’s dems will follow suit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.