Posted on 01/17/2021 12:02:31 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Going out on a limb here. Let me predict the demonkkkraps legal argument on why they are allowed to proceed with Trump impeachment in the Senate despite what the expert Dersh is saying.
They will argue that Trump was impeached while he was still occupying the White House. It should not matter that his term expired before the Senate could take it up and render its judgement. It is only right that it carries over and the Senate be obligated to take up the articles of impeachment as they are REQUIRED to UNDER the Constitution! No discretion, no sunset. As far as other past POTUS - they may not be impeached as House did not act before they left office.
This will advance up to the S Ct because either (1) the Senate won’t take it up and kkkraps sue to force them to take it up, or (2) Senate takes it up and Trump sues.
Now there are 3 leftist justices votes already in the bag for the kkkraps and Roberts a likely 4th. The kkkraps will also argue (or Schumer threatens them as he has successfully done in the past), that 3 Justices nominated by Trump are required to recuse. The rest will be history as Roberts will demand a rare recusal if they do not take the “hint” and “voluntarily” recuse. It will be a 4 - 2 decision, , and holding = Senate must act in the historically rare case where a “late term impeachment” must be heard by the Senate even though the “previous WH occupant” is no longer in the office because House took action under the Constitution prior to said exit, and to do so .
The kkkraps will Mitch will join Murkowski, Collins, Cotton, Toomey and “Willard from Utah” to convict.
And some people said it was unconstitutional under the “ceremonial 12th Amendment” for VP Pence to toss selected electoral ballots where electoral fraud evidence existed?!?! Don’t worry, it may be Camel Harris in 2024 who will prove them wrong.
And Dersh will end up on the losing side as real constitutional law has nothing to do with this.
“... how often I hear that someone shouldn’t comment because he or she is not a lawyer.”
When the law is such that the average person cannot understand and/or articulate what the law means, that person is not a free citizen nor lives in a constitutional republic.
Now you are really getting into it.
How do you interpret a statute passed in say 1990, using the vocabulary of 1990, with the Constitution from 1787? The left says by using a “living breathing Constitution” as long as it goes to the left. I am guessing you reject that, so Scalia’s must be your man - textual-ism in statutory interpretation and original-ism in constitutional matters. The left agrees with Scalia only when it advances or protects leftism.
If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the powers...
It should be plain from this that a continued impeachment
of Trump will mark the assumption of absolute power by
the democrat party. Of course they will continue to
tell you your reasoning is “baseless’ and without “evidence”.
As they say, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining...
They will argue that Trump was impeached while he was still occupying the White House. It should not matter that his term expired before the Senate could take it up and render its judgement. It is only right that it carries over and the Senate be obligated to take up the articles of impeachment as they are REQUIRED to UNDER the Constitution! No discretion, no sunset.
Should he not them be tried by a Senate that was sitting
while he was impeached?
The difference between the two cases Dershowitz mentioned was that neither Nixon or Belknap had been impeached while in office and Trump was. Congress will claim that since he was impeached while in office then the process has to continue. Whether or not the courts agree will be the question. Should be interesting.
Nothing in the Constitution requires that. But with three exceptions he will be.
If they want to maintain the illusion of a fair trail they are going to have to let evidence of vote fraud be presented. The RATs have been very successful in making sure a jury never saw any of it. Their best bet is to let McConnell make the whole thing go away. Mitch ends up looking like a hero and the RATs can claim the Republicans obstructed their ‘justice’.
Here’s the thing it clearly states removal from office that is what impeachment is for you can’t remove a private citizen...not allowing him to run for office again just means any future president who the opposite party doesn’t like can vote to impeach on charges that where never brought up during their time in office...say we find out that Barack for example took money from China while he was President...they could impeach Barack for such an offense and try remove the perks a former president gets as a way of saying hey we found out about this stuff while he was in office but we didn’t investigate now we can...it’s a slippery slope and it is unconstitutional
I was making a prediction at how the demonkkkraps would argue against the Dersh on the issue of a Senate trial after a POTUS was no longer in office. I am not agreeing that it should be considered as valid.
The Constitution states many things clearly but that has not prevented the Court from holding otherwise. Also, the Court has found things in the Constitution that aren’t in the document (e.g. abortion, homo marriage). This slippery slope happened decades ago.
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.