Fact check: No, impeachment itself would not ban Trump from a 2024 presidential run

abc7.com Eyewitness News Los Angeles ^ | Monday, January 11, 2021 6:17PM | CNNWire By Daniel Dale

[TBP]

The problem is that you’d have to have a slate of electors on file should the write-in candidate win. Remember, we don’t elect a President, we elect electors who elect a President.

[TBP]

[johnthebaptistmoore]

The lives of The entire Trump Family are in danger. Ditto, all Trump supporters. Ditto, all conservatives.

[Gay State Conservative]

But what relief,if any,did this Secretary of War seek from the courts during the impeachment process? Just because the Senate claims the authority to do something it doesn’t necessarily mean that they do.

[Gay State Conservative]

Further to my point about relief....a case called "Caetano v Massachusetts" was recently accepted by SCOTUS. It was a 2nd Amendment case in which Caetano was convicted of a felony by a Massachusetts court.She challenged the constitutionality of the conviction all the way up to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court) which upheld the conviction.

She then lodged the same challenge in the Federal courts and it eventually reached SCOTUS.

SCOTUS ruled in her favor...9-0. In the opinion they said that the Massachusetts court ruling was "frivolous".And,of course,they were also calling the vote of the state legislature frivolous as well.

If Caetano hadn't sought judicial relief she'd still be in prison.

[Yo-Yo]

But what relief,if any,did this Secretary of War seek from the courts during the impeachment process? Just because the Senate claims the authority to do something it doesn’t necessarily mean that they do.

If they did impeach, convict, and punish Trump after he left office, then I suppose that would be novel enough for SCOTUS to re-examine their prior position.

Here's a short Justia article on the subject:

Judicial Review of Impeachments

ANNOTATIONS

It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.907

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.”908 Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.909

907 Both judges challenged the use under Rule XI of a trial committee to hear the evidence and report to the full Senate, which would then carry out the trial. The rule was adopted in the aftermath of an embarrassingly sparse attendance at the trial of Judge Louderback in 1935. National Comm. Report, supra at 50–53, 54– 57; Grimes, supra at 1233–37. In the Nixon case, the lower courts held the issue to be non-justiciable (Nixon v. United States, 744 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991), but a year later a district court initially ruled in Judge Hastings’ favor. Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

908 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Nixon at the time of his conviction and removal from office was a federal district judge in Mississippi.

909 The Court listed “reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” and elsewhere agreed with the appeals court that “opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.” 506 U.S. at 234, 236.

[Yo-Yo]

Thank you! So, this ABC news fact check is wrong, and those that say "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" has never been defined, are spinning their wheels,

The original fact check was correct. The fact check said:

Even a Senate vote to remove Trump would not prohibit him from running in 2024; for the Senate to ban him from the presidency, it would have to hold an additional vote on this question.

This is correct. Impeachment is what the House does. Holding Trial for removal from office is what the Senate does. Holding ineligible for future office is an optional third step in the process that again only the Senate does. They have not always done so in prior impeachment proceedings.

[OrioleFan]

Im saying the pubbies better fear being primaried.

[Gay State Conservative]

Well,once again...Professor Dershowitz *and* Jonathan Turley,another prominent Constitutional scholar,seem to think differently. Of course they both have access to info that we mere mortals wouldn't have.For example,court rulings (perhaps announced after what you've mentioned) might cause them to take the position they've taken.

Remember,until recently SCOTUS didn't recognize the right of *individual* citizens to "keep and bear arms". And there was a time when SCOTUS believed that a man (Dredd Scott) could be considered three fifths of a person under Federal law.

[scouter]

The ability to disqualify from holding any future office is included in the constitution as a possible punishment, but it’s not automatic. Witness Alcee Hastings.