[thoughtomator]

That’s what I said from the start. The knowledge of the vote itself - well-publicized and officially published on Congress’ website - is sufficient notice.

There’s no Constitutional description of an individual who can choose not to transmit articles of impeachment. The vote was taken, the deed is done. Let’s get on with this.

[Vermont Lt]

The two houses are separate. Consider that one was in MA and the other in South Texas. There is no automatic connection between the two. Therefore, if a bill is created in one house (witching the restrictions for taxes) the other house of Congress would never know about it without transmittal.

Since reading and hearing about the bill is not accurate (in terms of this argument) there is no way that one house could take up the action of the other.

And since impeachment cannot originate in the senate, without transmittal from the house, they cannot act on something that “doesn’t exist” so far as they know.

The Senate doesn’t have an obligation to act on it with any urgency. They could be “really busy” when it comes over.

The whole thing is a rock of crap—and if I were the Republican party I would be running ads all over the break addressing the “game playing.” I would also create a school house rock episode explaining how Nancy, Adam, and Jerry are not following the rules.

[jjotto]

Do you believe the Senate acts on judges because the president publishes their nomination on the White House website?

[Freee-dame]

Senators must be under oath during an impeachment trial. The founders must have realized that their overall oath to uphold the constitution is not enough. In the House, Dem Congressmen lied again and again, relying on their Constitutional protection from prosecution for anything they say in the House.

[Howie66]

I can see both sides of this debate.

Here’s my take.

I took the actions of Pelosi and the House RATs as nothing more or less than an outright declaration of War on the Constitution, our Bill of Rights and the sovereign American Citizens.

This is the way that we should approach this from this point on.

[vigilante2]

Is the Senate supposed to rely on the media for delivery I think not.

[Yo-Yo]

Ergo, if Mad Nan chooses not to 'formally deliver' the articles of impeachment and/or to not send 'managers' to present the House's case, the Senate is well within its Constitutional authority to proceed without them.

The Senate cannot try an impeachment based on "hearsay" reporting in the news that the House has passed articles of impeachment.

Unless and until the House formally transmits the matter to the Senate for consideration, the Senate has noting upon which to act.

[TexasRepublic]

Pelosi has no authority or power to dictate how the Senate conducts a trial. Here is what the US Constitution has to say:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

“The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

“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 [John Roberts] shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

I wonder how Roberts and McConnell would interact? Roberts could be key to the final outcome.

[Responsibility2nd]

Ergo, if Mad Nan chooses not to 'formally deliver' the articles of impeachment and/or to not send 'managers' to present the House's case, the Senate is well within its Constitutional authority to proceed without them.

 

Nope. Unh-unh.

The senate has specific rules of their own to follow. Since the House has FAILED in their impeachement efforts, there is nothing the Senate can do.

 

 

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS[Revised pursuant to S. Res. 479, 99-2, Aug. 16, 1986]

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately in- form the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be intro- duced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------''; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.

III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o'clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.

 

more...

[faucetman]

I wanted to see for myself, the “articles of impeachment” against President Trump.

An Internet search for the actual “articles” always ends up in the same place. As released by the House Judiciary Committee.

They are UNSIGNED, and undated. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????

Is Trump “actually” impeached?

I guess that the “LIVE” reading and vote on CSPAN would count as “delivery” to the Senate as well as TO THE WHOLE WORLD!

Just DISMISS the the UNCONSTITUTIONAL charges already!

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The Members must be under oath, a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried.

This is not what the Constitution says. Not two-thirds vote, but two-thirds votes of Members present. Big difference.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 states:

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: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 states:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment 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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[faucetman]

Nancy Pelousy can not withhold the Articles of Impeachment.

She already conveyed them to the Senate via CSPAN.

[Magnum44]

Honestly at this point, what difference does it make?

[Nateman]

The strategy should be to replay the Clinton Impeachment over and over again as a talking point.During the actual time of the trial there was barely a peep from the Lamestream press about it. The Senate voted unanimously on the rules which means Chuck Schumer himself was part of that vote. Start by having an official vote to reuse those rules.

Get a writ of Mandamus forcing the passing of Articles from the Supreme Court , have Judge Roberts sit in at the start then vote to dismiss on the grounds no crime was committed in the articles sent.

[mlo]

"These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings" (emphasis added)

Ergo, if Mad Nan chooses not to 'formally deliver' the articles of impeachment and/or to not send 'managers' to present the House's case, the Senate is well within its Constitutional authority to proceed without them.

No, it doesn't follow. The House failing to follow through on impeachment doesn't change the Senate proceedings. The proceedings are what happens once the Senate takes it up. Not something that happens before.

[dead]

There is no parchment version of the articles coming via horseback. Nancy's input is finished.

It is now ENTIRELY up to McConnell and the Senate to do with as they see fit. Nancy can resume pouring vodka into her pie hole.

[metmom]

The Senate ought to demand one.

The dems are saying that they’ve released the articles of impeachment and that the Senate can act on that.

But if they are not formally delivered the official final copy, the House Dems could later turn around and claim that what the Senate took from whatever source it had, was not the OFFICIAL final version of the articles of impeachment, therefore the whole Senate hearing and vote was invalid and needed to be repeated.

[NobleFree]

GianCarlo Canaparo, a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, agrees: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3802466/posts