Posted on 01/23/2021 9:24:56 AM PST by Hostage
“Nanny” Pelosi can CLAIM that The Moon is solely composed of cream cheese.
(That SPECIOUS claim is NO different than the FOOLISHNESS that she & her clown-car of MORONS are trying to pull.)
What she BETTER worry about is that there are still a GREAT MANY current/former GIs, who are BOUND FOR LIFE by the sacred OATH that we all voluntarily took to PROTECT & DEFEND The Constitution of The United States “from all enemies foreign & domestic”. - We GIs & ex-GIs will not sit still for the US Constitution’s provisions being OPENLY VIOLATED.
(IMO, Pelosi & her COVEN of crooks/creeps/haters best SERIOUSLY “think on” that fact.)
Yours, ex-cadet
USA, Retired
’ I seriously doubt that the DeMs can find a US judge, who will even listen to their CORRUPT SCHEME.’
Oh yea the virtue seeking assholes are sitting on benches all over the land - no one would listen to the states nor TRUMP or others on the vote theft issues - TWO TIERED JUSTICE SYSTEM alive and well and out in the open gives conservatives the finger every day! SOCIALISM! TOTALITARIANISM!!
But it was passed after the current 117th Congress started, so it is not moot for two more years on January 3rd, 2022.
“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.”
—
Perfect. The Left will impeach Trump and other potential 2024 candidates they want to “take out” like Kristi Noem. What a wonderful weapon for the Left.
By moving forward with the impeachment, all who do are violating their oath of office. They should be impeached.
If the shoe were on the other foot, you can be sure the Dems would be calling for the impeachment of Republicans.
See objectors to the electoral votes.
If only the Republicans would play smashmouth like the Dems.
To make that certain, article 2, sect 4 requires a president to be removed from office after impeachment. SHALL is the word used.
You make some points and who knows how the Dem/Soc/Comms will twist this? They smell blood in the water and are going after Trump no matter what.
If only the Republicans would play smashmouth
like the Dems.
AH! Dreamin’ again.
That’ll be the day! Unfortunately, too busy with
their hands stuffing their pockets to have the ability
to play smashmouth.
[Article] "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.- - - - - - - - - -
[Hostage #1] With 50 votes and a tiebreaker, the Senate can 'condemn' without effect.
Impeachment and conviction after leaving office has been done before and can be done again.
An academic debate about constitutionality is fine, but the Congress has plenary power to decide; no court has jurisdiction to review their decision; and there is existing precedent for impeaching and trying an official who has left office. It is a political question, explicitly reserved by the Constitution to the powers of Congress. The Executive pardon power does not reach impeachments, and neither does the Judicial power. Argument that the Congressional action is unconstitutional just does not matter as there is no place to take it. Congress decides and their decision is final, and it does have effect. The Senate may convict with a two-thirds majority. There is no tie-breaker vote in an impeachment proceeding.
In this case the impeachment took place while Trump was in office, and only the trial will, perhaps, take place while Trump is out of office. Impeachments against a president proceed under the same law as other officers.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm
[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 27. Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office][...]
The "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States'' are subject to removal under the impeachment clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4. A private citizen who has held no public office may not be impeached. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2007, 2315.
[...]
Impeachment proceedings were initiated against a Member of the President's Cabinet in 1876, when impeachment charges were filed against William W. Belknap, who had been Secretary of War. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the Secretary remained amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation.
[...]
Effect of Resignation
The House and Senate have the power to impeach and try an accused official who has resigned. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 2. It was conceded (in the Belknap impeachment proceeding described above) that a Cabinet Secretary remains amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2317, 2318. As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and Judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, and further proceedings were discontinued. 93-2, H. Rept. 93-1305, p 29361. Judge English resigned before commencement of trial by the Senate and the proceedings were discontinued at that point. 6 Cannon Sec. 547. Judge Delahay (1873) and Judge Kent (2009) likewise resigned prior to Senate proceedings.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3.pdf
Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 14, Section 2
§ 2. Who May Be Impeached; Effect of Resignation
Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution subjects the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. It has been settled that a private citizen is not subject to the impeachment process except for offenses committed while a civil officer under the United States.(9)
In one case, it was determined by the Senate that a U.S. Senator (William Blount [Tenn.]) was not a civil officer under article II, section 4, and the Senate disclaimed jurisdiction to try him.(10) In view of the fact that the Constitution provides not only for automatic removal of an officer upon impeachment and conviction, but also for the disqualification from holding further office under the United States (art. I, § 3, clause 7), the House and Senate have affirmed their respective power to impeach and try an accused who has resigned.(11)
The latter question first arose in the Blount case, where the Senate expelled Senator Blount after his impeachment by the House but before articles had been drafted and before his trial in the Senate had begun. The House proceeded to adopt articles, and it was conceded in the Senate that a person impeached could not escape punishment by resignation; the Senate decided that it had no jurisdiction, however, to try the former Senator since he had not been a civil officer for purposes of impeachment.(12)
William W. Belknap, Secretary of War, resigned from office before his impeachment by the House and before his trial in the Senate. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the former Secretary was amenable to impeachment and trial; at the conclusion of trial the respondent was acquitted of all charges by the Senate.(13)
(9) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2315, 2007. A commissioner of the District of Columbia was held not to be a civil officer subject to impeachment under the Constitution. 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 548.
(10) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2310, 2316.
(11) The question whether the House may impeach a civil officer who has resigned is a constitutional issue for the House and not the Chair to decide (see § 2.4, infra).
(12) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2317, 2318.
(13) 3 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2007, 2467.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf
3 Hind's Precedents Sec. 2007; pp. 320-21 (full section spans pp. 310-21)
On May 29 the Presiding Officer announced that the proposition pending was that offered by Mr. Morton on the 16th instant. Thereupon Mr. Morton modified his proposition to read as follows:Resolved, That the power of impeachment created by the Constitution does not extend to a person who is charged with the commission of a high crime while he was a civil officer of the United States and acting in his official character, but who had ceased to be such officer before the finding of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives.Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved,'' in the first line, and in lieu thereof inserting:
That the demurrer of the respondent to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea of the respondent be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the plea of the respondent to the jurisdiction of the Senate be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the articles of impeachment are sufficient to show that the Senate has jurisdiction of the case, and that the respondent answer to the merits of the accusation contained in the articles of impeachment.Mr. Isaac P. Christiancy, of Michigan, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, by striking out all after the word "that'' in the first line thereof, and inserting:
W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is not amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, he having resigned said office before impeachment.Mr. George G. Wright, of Iowa, moved to lay the resolution of Mr. Morton on the table, and this motion was agreed to, yeas 36, nays 30.
Thereupon Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, proposed a resolution, which was in this form, after the words "before he was impeached'' had been added on motion of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York:
Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate William W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.Mr. Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska, moved to amend the said resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved'' and in lieu thereof inserting:
That William W. Belknap, late Secretary of Wax, (as in original, should be "War") having ceased to be a civil officer of the United States by reason of his resignation before proceedings in impeachment were commenced against him by the House of Representatives, the Senate can not take jurisdiction in this case.This amendment was disagreed to, yeas 29, nays 37.
Then the resolution was agreed to, yeas 37, nays 29.
Mr. Thurman also presented a further resolution, which, after amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware, was agreed to by a vote of 35 yeas, 22 nays:
Resolved, That at the time specified in the foregoing resolution [June 1 was fixed by a separate resolution] the President of the Senate shall pronounce the judgment of the Senate as follows: "It is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held for naught;'' which judgment thus pronounced shall be entered upon the Journal of the Senate sitting as aforesaid.In the final arguments Messrs. Montgomery Blair and Matthew H. Carpenter also argued this question.
Someone may have mentioned it already but it takes a super majority to impeach by the Senate. I don’t think 2/3 would vote to impeach, even including those who have turned their backs to Trump now.
There might be two to five Republican Senators who would vote that Trump is guilty. But the Democrats don’t need 17 Republicans to vote with them. They need a two-thirds vote, but if some of the Republicans absent themselves from the vote, they don’t need 67 votes.
The language of the Constitution, if it matters, is that there needs to be a two-thirds vote of those “present” at the time of the vote. If 15 democrats sat out then a two-thirds vote would be around 24 votes (35 x 2/3 = 23.31 round up to 24).
Note: you don’t round down in this instance when it comes to people because 1) 23 votes would not satisfy the 2/3rds condition (23/35 = 0.65714286 and 2/3 = .666666) but who the heck knows when it comes to BLMommon Kore math; and 2) You cannot have a .31 percent of a person, again maybe its that BLMommon Kore math.
Before someone says to round up the 23/35 to 0.66 you would have to round up the 2/3 to 0.67 thus 0.66 != 0.67. Therefore, you would have to round up to 24 senators present out of 35 voting in favor of impeachment. And I can see the demoncrapsss doing this.
Sorry professor. The Democrats will do this and in 3 years they will change the law and then apply it to Trump. My dog could have figured this one out.
Attempting to disenfranchise 75 million Americans.
“Don’t count every vote”.
Yes I only counted 50 senators in the last bit to illustrate a point. Yes, I know there are 100 senators in office and I did this to illustrate a point and simplify the numbers. If 85 Senators voted then two-thirds would actually be 57 Senators would need to vote to make the two-thirds out of 85 Senators present at the time of the vote. Not 48 as some might think.
Ask the Little Sisters of the Poor how well that protected them back during the Øbama regime.
It does not matter if DJT runs in 2024 any more than it would have mattered if an opposition candidate had run in Soviet elections. Given that the huge vote manipulation and fraudulence was accepted eagerly by all political actors it has become the normal and proper way to conduct elections under the New Regime that will not be unseated by any popular action short of massive rebellion.
Alan thinks our country is still a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Since we no longer follow the Constitution then constitutional scholars will soon be irrelevant and out of work.
Apparently, not only do they not trust the voters, but also and more importantly, the demonkkkraps and GOPe don’t appear confident that they will be able to pull off fraudulent voting and election rigging in 2024.
“...so it is not moot for two more years on January 3rd, 2022.”
I said it was moot according to normal jurisprudence. You cannot not cite me a case where a president that was not in office has been impeached after he left office. And you can not cite me any source where the writers of the Constitution even considered it a remote possibility. The clause in the Constitution says to “remove” a president from office with penalties. Constitutionally, the objective of the impeachment clause is to remove from office, not to chase down a private citizen to eliminate him as a future competitor of those who are rigging the “trial.” That is laughable.
“Are you saying that disqualifying Trump won’t work?”
I think he is saying that disqualifying Trump won’t work.
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.