Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment
The Hill ^ | 05/31/19 04:08 PM EDT | Alan Dershowitz

Posted on 06/01/2019 1:57:41 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

Donald John TrumpOcasio-Cortez returns to bartending in support of tipped workers: 'Still got it!' Trade wars have cost stock market trillion: Deutsche Bank analysis Dollar stores warn they will have to raise prices over tariffs MORE has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he might seek review of such an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, he tweeted that if “the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.”

Yesterday, when asked by a reporter if he thinks Congress will impeach him, the president responded, “I don’t see how. They can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.”

Commentators have accused Trump of not understanding the way impeachment works and have stated quite categorically that the courts have no constitutional role to play in what is solely a congressional and political process. Time magazine declared in a headline “That’s Not How It Works,” and Vox called the president’s argument “profoundly confused.”

Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that “The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment,” and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trump’s argument simply “idiocy,” explaining that “the court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a...”


(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alandershowitz; braking; dershowitz; donaldtrump; impeachment; impeachtrump; scotus; supremecourt; thedersh; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last
To: arrogantsob

“...In “The Long Goodbye” by the award-winning author, Conor Cruise O’Brien, this is exhaustively documented. The more you learn of Jefferson the less you respect him. ...”

I think I have read every major Jefferson biography and discussion of that period. And that is what happened to me!
My regard for Jefferson declined with ever new work I read. My regard for Washington and Hamilton rose. Washington truly was the indispensable man.


121 posted on 06/03/2019 11:52:42 AM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Reily

You sure it wasn’t this book?

The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800
by Conor Cruise O’Brien


122 posted on 06/03/2019 12:04:28 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Who is the trier of fact?

The House Managers who submitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Read this website's description of the Clinton impeachment and trial to see how the Senate behaved during the trial portion.

-PJ

123 posted on 06/03/2019 12:13:26 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Thanks for that information. I’ll need to read more on this subject. We’re you referring to ‘The Long Affair’ by O’Brien?


124 posted on 06/03/2019 1:09:14 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

I agree. Any Democrat who tries to remove the President absent an actual reason to do so is then attempting a coup and if they’re met with deadly force in the preservation of the Republic then so be it.

Hopefully it will be the US military that acts to remove these traitors if it comes to it.


125 posted on 06/03/2019 1:55:14 PM PDT by MeganC (There is nothing feminine about feminism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1
The founders DID codify and the ratifiers DID ratify in the Constitution, the Supremes having a role in a presidential appeal to the SCOTUS.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...In all Cases affecting...public Ministers...the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, 2.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over any dispute that legitimately involves a "federal question" (that which legitimately involves the Constitution or federal law). Certainly Trump's case would qualify. Also, Trump, as a "public minister" would qualify for original jurisdiction meaning he could go straight to SCOTUS bypassing lower courts.

People need to get back to actually reading and understanding the Constitution.

Your comment about "unelected federal agencies" doesn't belong here. This has nothing to do with utterly unconstitutional Administrative/Regulatory State and their utterly unconstitutional agencies. which must be dismantled if we are to restore our Free Constitutional Republic.

126 posted on 06/03/2019 5:50:02 PM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: enumerated

“he (Dersh) supported Hillary Clinton and doesn’t try to hide that fact, even when he’s on Hannity’s show.”

Just tonight he mentioned he doesn’t think Hillary should be investigated.


127 posted on 06/03/2019 7:09:21 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Reily

“Washington truly was the indispensable man.”

From God, as is Trump.


128 posted on 06/03/2019 7:11:06 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam

Dershowitz is really for a de-escalation of using the criminal justice system for these political fights. He does have a point. All this crap should have stopped a long time ago. But, I think the Rats went too far this time and now, I hope Barr makes them pay, at least a little. I am not hoping for too much though based on past Republican investigation screw ups.


129 posted on 06/03/2019 7:34:50 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Respectfully disagree.


130 posted on 06/04/2019 3:46:10 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The “trier of fact” is a judge or a jury.

In the case of impeachments, the trier of fact is the Senate as a body.


131 posted on 06/04/2019 3:55:11 AM PDT by Jim Noble (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Thanks. I thought it was the prosecutors.

-PJ

132 posted on 06/04/2019 3:59:23 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

John Roberts is not the Chief Justice “of the Supreme Court”.

He is the Chief Justice of the United States. His authority, therefore, extends to matters beyond those before the Supreme Court, and his presence as the presiding officer over a Senate trial of the President is not because he sits on the Court, it’s because of the high office of state he holds.


133 posted on 06/04/2019 4:01:52 AM PDT by Jim Noble (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1

At some point you might consider putting together a constitutionally-based rationale for your disagreement here, or for your viewpoint in general when it comes to the feds and the Constitution.


134 posted on 06/04/2019 5:33:08 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam

You have a fair point.

He is likely to be soft on Clinton - but I think it’s because he doesn’t believe she was a part of Obama’s spying - that is his big issue - civil liberties violations in particular.

Other violations, which she WAS involved in, like profiteering from her SoS position, coverups, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, perjury, witness tampering, suborning perjury, etc. - these are also abuses of power.

But Dersh is a apparently soft on this type of “political corruption” - he thinks the appropriate punishment for political crimes should be meted out by the voter - not the DOJ or the Legislature.

I personally would like to see Hillary Clinton in prison or hanged - but it won’t happen... there are far too many Americans on both the right and the left who would be against it. Elected officials hanging or putting other elected officials (or candidates) in jail? Too much like a banana republic - how can the people ever be sure it was impartial justice vs political reprisal? They can’t - so the best punishment is political shame and banishment - by the voters.

Brennon, Comey, etc. - they were not elected or running for election - so the American people might support them serving prison time if convicted... let’s hope so.


135 posted on 06/04/2019 11:05:39 AM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

At some point you might consider that congress has has impeachment firmly ensconced in its authority by the constitution without any reference to the judicial branch. Thus the Constitution specifically calls out Congressional authority over impeachment. Article III does not amend this carve out in any way nor does any area of the Constitution. So there is no role for the federal courts in impeachment other than the Chief Justice serving as Judge of the proceedings in the Senate.

The biggest falsehood being promulgated upon the people at this time is that impeachment is a political activity. In fact it is intended to be a legal activity where where illegal activities of elected and appointed officials are address. Today American congressmen are trying to convince the American people that impeachment is little more than a popularity contest whereby they intend to overturn an election and if not able to effect that the intent is to so damage the President so much as to prevent his re-election. Having the rogue federal judiciary stick their nose in this is the last thing America needs.


136 posted on 06/04/2019 12:04:00 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: HollyB

Yes.


137 posted on 06/04/2019 1:35:51 PM PDT by arrogantsob (See "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

One just goes further and deeper into the Constitution with no end.

Magnificent.

As to actual knowledge/understanding of the Constitution, some of the folks around here have read it within the last ten years. It is a sad situation to see pearls before swine.


138 posted on 06/04/2019 1:40:44 PM PDT by arrogantsob (See "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Reily

Hamilton was the most unjustly vilified among the Founders and played an indispensable role in advising Washington throughout the Revolution and Founding.

His story is that of screenplay gone wild and one cannot believe that only one life could have been everywhere and in every contradiction.

It is so fascinating that it demands a movie (no one reads) to educate the People about him. So I worked on a screenplay for ten years with the head of the Screenwriting Program at UCLA. Health matters took a hand and it stands as it did.

Then the musical “Hamilton” verified my instinct that the latent interest was there.


139 posted on 06/04/2019 1:50:46 PM PDT by arrogantsob (See "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Yes agree no one reads!

Agree wholeheartedly regarding Hamilton!

Public school K12 education tends to lean you toward mindless Jefferson worship (Even back in the 1960s!). Minimizes even Washington’s contribution, but if you actually study the period you see that is 180 degrees out of phase!


140 posted on 06/04/2019 2:42:14 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson