Posted on 01/17/2021 12:02:31 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
On this week’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz decried an ongoing impeachment effort against President Donald Trump for allegedly inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
According to Dershowitz, impeaching someone who is not a sitting president was unconstitutional, and he laid out the precedent that backed up his reasoning.
“It will be unconstitutional, but that probably won’t bother the senators. The Constitution is very clear. The subject, the object, the purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting precedent. And there are two precedents. One is very obvious. When President Nixon resigned in anticipation of being impeached and removed, there was no effort to impeach him after he left office. It was clear that the Senate had lost jurisdiction at that point. The proponents cite another precedent. In 1876, there was a failed effort, a failed effort to remove the secretary of war. In an initial vote, the Senate voted close, in a close vote, that they did have jurisdiction to try somebody who had resigned.
But then, when it came to a vote on the merits, they lost because 27 or so senators voted that they did not have jurisdiction. Those senators were right. There is no jurisdiction. You cannot put citizen Trump on trial. If you could do that, it would be a bill of attainder, number one, putting somebody on trial who was not a sitting president. And, number two, the implications would be horrendous. It would mean that if the Republicans came up with a terrific candidate, say, not Donald Trump, to run against President Biden in 2024, the Democrats could simply impeach him. If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the powers...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Way too late for ‘would’ ‘should’ Al. Rubber is about to meet the road. Go back to your Rat party.
We all know the GOP is contemplating the better ally — us or the Rats.
Pelosi and the entire swamp detritus team need to all be impeached after Trump is de-impeached:
The send the SWAMP TO GITMO for having Antifa/BLM pawns break into congressional chamber!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJfMZWNrwqU
Life, Liberty & Levin 1/17/21 FULL | FOX BREAKING TRUMP NEWS January 17,21
Impeachment blatantly is for removal from office when you’re out of office you can’t be impeached. If this where constitutional then congress can basically impeach any private citizen they want
Aren’t we lucky that those lawyer guys go to school for so many years, so that they all know so clearly what the law means?
Why don’t they impeach Bill Clinton?
I believe he’s still alive.
The Demon-crats and RINOs don’t care about the Constitution. They believe they have unlimited power.
If the House did something that is unconstitutional those reps should be recalled! Their oath of office is a joke! Words that are meaningless
That’s the voters job.
Most voters can’t spell Constitution, have never read any of it. I have no knowledge of or understanding of what it says.
What does Pence do? Instead of consulting the rules in the Constitution he asks the parliamentarian how to proceed.
Yeah, Our Founders believed that if you don't like what they wrote in the Constitution, you just consult Robert's Rules of Order.
Right?
Including GWB, Clinton, and Zero.
“Aren’t we lucky that those lawyer guys go to school for so many years, so that they all know so clearly what the law means?”
No luck about it.
Consider how many lawyers are demonkkkrap members of Congress. Do they not know the law and can call off the snarling non-lawyer demonkkkrap members? Little secret.
They were taught in law school how to look at words and come up with unique and novel arguments, no matter how bad the case, no matter how illogical, to “stretch” the law into areas not contemplated by statutory intent or constitutional meaning. That’s why the left support the “living-breathing Constitution” approach, change the meaning of words, etc. Ends justifies the means. They only take a strict constructionist position when it blocks their political opposition from undermining the left. Judges and justices learned the same.
That part also seems to be left out by those referencing the 1876 precedent.
I know all that. It just cracks me up how often I hear that someone shouldn’t comment because he or she is not a lawyer - as if being one means the opinion presented is sacrosanct.
In post-constitutional America they know that they don't need us anymore. As long as they play their role as pretend opposition their dem master will pat them on the head and pull the election lever to allow just enough of them to keep their cushy jobs to make it look like we aren't run by a single party politburo. For now. As Churchill said, feeding your friends to the crocodile hoping it will eat you last is a poor plan.
Dershowitz may be a liberal but when it comes to the law he seems to be a straight shooter. Refreshing.
“They were taught in law school how to look at words and come up with unique and novel arguments”
That is a bug/feature of the relatively new English language. Older languages have fewer words and expressions with ambiguous interpretations.
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.