And we'll have the final guardians of our Constitution prevent the Demonrats from any illegal actions on this.
Oh, crap. Well, at least the National Archives staff have something to use if they run out of toilet paper.
Posted on 01/23/2021 9:24:56 AM PST by Hostage
While it would take 67 votes in the Senate to "remove" former President Donald Trump, Senate precedent requires just 50 votes to block Trump from running again in 2024, but it will not work, according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.
"This is an attempt to simply control the electoral process in 2024," Dershowitz told "Saturday Report," adding he is not involved in this impeachment trial team for this "political theater" because he is "neither a politician nor an actor."
"It's illegal," Dershowitz told host Carl Higbie. "The Constitution provides for impeachment as an extraordinary remedy only to remove somebody from office. One they're removed from office, you can then disqualify them.
"But you can't impeach somebody simply to disqualify them, because if you could, the party in power could simply impeach any potential candidate in the future and determine who they are running against. That's not what the framers intended."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
"You can't impeach somebody simply to disqualify them, because if you could, the party in power could simply impeach any potential candidate in the future and determine who they are running against." --Derschowitz
Are you saying that disqualifying Trump won’t work?
I think that is their intent. They think they are the Uniparty and will be in power forever.
You can’t “disqualify” anybody from running as president, outside of the constitutional requirements stated in the constitution.
Alcee Hastings was impeached as a FL judge
Then ran for congress, still serving but with terminal cancer
He sums it up correctly.
This is an attempt by one party to outlaw their opponents.
You also can’t proceed because now that Trump is a private citizen, a Senate “trial” is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
And we'll have the final guardians of our Constitution prevent the Demonrats from any illegal actions on this.
Oh, crap. Well, at least the National Archives staff have something to use if they run out of toilet paper.
Who’s going to stop it? Roberts? 🤣😅😂😁😭
I’d love to tell Roberts to wipe that smirk off his face.
It won’t work, just like stealing an election won t work because we have a Supreme Court that wo t allow it... oh wait, woops my bad
[[”You can’t impeach somebody simply to disqualify them, because if you could, the party in power could simply impeach any potential candidate in the future and determine who they are running against.” —Derschowitz
and the left says “here, hold my beer, watch this”
Where does the Constitution allow banning someone from being President even if they are legitimately impeached? Qualifications are listed and described and it does not mention anything about Congress being able to ban someone. Congress does not have the power to add qualifications without passing an Amendment.
They have more than 50 but is still unconstitutional.
Until they pack the Supreme Court.
Btw disqualifying opponents is tyranny.
Yes, agree.
However, the Democrat Congress just makes up their own rules.
And with the help of Roberts and the three so-called ‘Conservative SCOTUS judges appointed by Trump, will gladly join with the Leftist judges there to agree that the Democrats and do as they please.
They aren’t even the uniparty.
They overthrew an elected President by way of an CONSTITUTIONAL FAKE ELECTION and colluded with the CCP to boot.
Not only are they an occupying regime, they enabled an ACT OF WAR by the CCP.
THEY ALL need to be ARRESTED by the military.
“But you can’t impeach somebody simply to disqualify them, because if you could, the party in power could simply impeach any potential candidate in the future and determine who they are running against. That’s not what the framers intended.”
But it’s the new normal Alan, didn’t you get the message?
Prime example is Alcee Hastings. As a Federal Judge, he was impeached by the house, convicted by the Senate and removed from office, but was not prohibited from future office holding.
That is why he is a Representative today.
But how can you skip the conviction and go straight to the punishment?
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The word “and” means both at the same time. “... removal from office, and disqualification...” If either of them is impossible, the sentence is negated. Impeachment is not possible unless both can be true. Since “removal from office “ does not apply to a private citizen, the entire sentence is not possible.
From Formal Logic.
We’ve reached the point where powerful people can do whatever they want.
And they can also punish you for doing perfectly normal things. Like voicing support for President Trump. That’s an actionable offense at this point.
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.