Posted on 01/23/2021 12:38:04 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator
> The Constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over a trial of the “president” <
I’ve read good arguments both ways. But this is the first time I’ve seen that particular argument. You might be on to something here!
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”
It says “President”. Not “someone who is or was President”.
The problem is that the courts have traditionally given the Senate wide leeway on how it runs things. So we’re not out of the woods yet.
As a review, no. But Trump would simply challenge it through the federal court system, and the Supreme Court would have to go and study the whole intent, and the lack of any real law supporting it. This is why I think that Roberts will suggest he can’t be a part to this particular impeachment.
he was not a elected president and federal official .
meaningless comparison .
I read the same thing about Roberts.
Excellent idea. Fire with fire. Very Trumpian too.
Trump was President when he was impeached. We are in uncharted territory because there is no precident for someone impeached while in office and then the trial was held while they were out of office.
It will be really hard for them to split the baby, claiming “in office” rules apply, and then also claiming “out of office” rules apply. Which is it?
That would be a Constitutional check and balance between co-equal branches of government.
If Roberts won't preside over an impeachment trial of a former President, that means a co-equal branch had decided that the Legislative branch is exceeded its authority versus the Executive branch, and the impeachment should be ruled as unconstitutional.
They (the Democrats) might make up a rule out of thin air....bringing in some retired Senator or former federal judge to act in this capacity...but all it’d do is provide more problems in dumping the conviction if it went to the Supreme Court for review.
I think the purpose of having the Chief Justice preside over the trial of a President is that that IS the Supreme Court review. If Roberts refuses to participate, it's over. Refusal of the Chief Justice to participate means the Supreme Court deemed the impeachment to be an unconstitutional overreach of the Legislative branch against the Executive branch.
-PJ
Bingo. Very uncharted territory.
😂😂😂
Good point. Thanks.
Isn’t there a current Democrat Representative from Florida that was impeached as a Federal Judge, removed from office, so he ran and won a seat in congress?
If the President's term is expired, then the impeachment becomes moot and the proceedings should be terminated.
I would consider it to be like a pocket veto when the Congress has adjourned sine die (at the end of its term). In this case, it's the end of the President's term that vetoes the impeachment.
-PJ
Also subpoena as witnesses all the RAT politicians who allowed protestors to enter the Capitol Building during the Kavanaugh hearings, for the purpose of intimidating GOP Senators.
Your argument makes perfect sense.
Hastings.
But they didn’t also vote to forbid them from ever holding office.
Love it. Yes. They want a show trial - let’s give ‘em one.
He was convicted and removed from office, but a 55D-45R Senate declined to vote on barring future office.
It was Democrats protecting their own. They couldn't do anything about the bribery charges, but they could control the additional penalty, and they did.
-PJ
True.
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.