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.
Indeed, it's their way of life.
This isn't the same: it's about whether the Senate can act in this case to exercise a power explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution.
McConnell will move to just an immediate vote.
McConnell is no longer in charge. Chuck U Schumer is. And he'll drag the life out of it for all its worth...
You’re saying that Trump, no longer president, is covered because his alleged offense occurred while he was president. Your reading is not untenable. Yet, the sentence is in the present tense.
In an impeachment of, say, a federal judge, the presiding officer is the President of the Senate (i.e., the Vice President). In practice, this doesn’t happen, and the President pro tempore presides. In the case of a sitting president, there would be a conflict of interest, hence, the Chief Justice. Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention are explicit on this substitution. Having said this, the notes aren’t binding. As an aside, it would be inappropriate for the Vice President to preside over his own impeachment, but the Constitution is silent on this.
The Chief Justice, joined if necessary by his colleagues, may have to decide the matter.
If McConnell and the other idiots in the senate and Justice Roberts goes along with this farce, you can bet that the Media-Dem Party will start impeaching every past president they don’t like, Washington, Jefferson, all the other slaveholding presidents, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley etc. They’ll all be airbrushed out of our history, probably leaving only 0bama as our Founding Father.
Yep, wouldn’t put it past them. With no constraints, either case history or otherwise, anything goes.
Good point, it’s not apples and apples comparison. Definitely treading uncharted territory. We’ll see how this unfolds. Thanks for the feedback.
Yes I do. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer feel this is a win for them regardless of the outcome in the Senate.
They’re doing this to set Trump apart as the only twice impeached president. “Look,” they’ll say if he runs again, “He’s the only one so vile and corrupt that he got impeached twice! Only stubborn republicans on the wrong side of history saved his bacon! Vote all the GOP out!” And the media nod solemnly in agreement and decry the injustice of another Trump run for office, as if they dug up Benedict Arnold from the grave and put him on the ticket.
On the other hand I’m very worried that they WILL have the votes to convict. I put nothing past these lowlife politicians. My prediction however is that he will be acquitted by approximately 8 to 10 votes. A narrow enough margin that the Democrats can point to it to show that it was just a few old white men who couldn’t bring themselves to do the right thing.
I don’t think they’ll get the 67 votes, so its all theater.
At most, 6 or 7, but that’s it. Maybe not even that, as the show trial is still a ways away.
“let me see the 17 republicans with the gonads to say 74000000 voters were wrong.“
I’m pretty convinced that they already did that when they allowed this utterly corrupted election decision go basically un-opposed.
They told 74 million of us that WE don’t matter; they THEY call all the shots and what are we gonna do about it, huh?....
And they got away with it. Now they feel invisible.
What does the US Constitution say about removing a president who is out of office?
Who the hell reads or adheres to the Constitution in that cesspool of corruption. It’s every turd for him or her self.
Yes indeed.
They don’t need no stinkin’ constitution!
They have been increasingly going around it for years. Now they have NO shame in blatantly ignoring the Constitution.
THEY rule over us... THEY do as THEY please.. what are the peasants gonna do about it... - this is their attitude in DC.
We are living in Hunger Games society - minus the games part.
Women have gonads.
We do not have balls (or testicles) but we have ovaries which are gonads.
Yep!
Actually it states the name of the particular office of the President of the United States, a formal noun and name of a particular office in the US government.
And there is only 1 President of the United States (or none) at any given time.
I would imagine it's because the Founding Fathers never thought that we would ever try a former president for impeachment. Never imagined someone like Pelosi and Schumer obviously. Trump was president when he was impeached so the dignity of his former office would make it a job for the Chief Justice to preside. But I expect his lawyers will challenge the whole idea of a trial now that he's out of office so the whole question may be moot. We'll see.
Removal from office is 2/3. Once that is successful, they may vote on a majority basis for banning from future office.
If they are not removing him from office, can they vote on banning from future office?
Dershowitz says no
we can argue constitutional law but the real question is will the Republicans commit political suicide?
Whether Trump is eligible for future office is irrelevant. His MAGA supporters are not going away. Banning Trump would only strengthen their resolve. Trump will always be a kingmaker.
The Republican party is nothing without MAGA supporters.
But President Trump did not resign.
That may explain the pressure from the LEFT to get him to resign in his final days in office. It may have strengthened their case.
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.