Posted on 01/23/2021 9:39:44 PM PST by conservative98
“Why doesn’t the full Supreme Court decide if post facto impeachment is Constitutional?”
Because nobody has standing?
Roberts is probably starting to realize he’s screwed. The mask is off, and everything is out the window.
“If Roberts has any balls he’ll tell them the whole process
is illegal and he’s not having anything to do with it.”
We don’t know what he said privately.
“It’s in the self-interest of all the Justices to do this.”
I am not sure that applies to the three (or four).
“Wonder when biden going to wake up to the fact he is the one whos power is being taken.”
That train has left the station.
It’s not an impeachment it’s a bill of attainder.
Roberts SILENCED Paul when he tried to even mention Eric Ciaramella (the shot-across-the-bow for the coming tech censorship wave) and he still thinks Roberts will do the right thing NOW??
LOL 😂
I enjoy reading all of your posts. Very insightful. But what about Senator Trout back in the 1700s? He was impeached. He was never tried, however. Also, I think there’s a difference between civil officer of the United States and office of the United States.
Fraudulent process.
Agreed. It took only 7 comments before someone got it right.
If Roberts has any conscience at all, he best adhere to the Constitution and keep away. If he does show up, that coupled with the SC’s failure to take the Texas case would be double proof of SC corruption. And it might open the door to favorable consideration of the yet remaining voter fraud cases at the SC.
That doesn’t seem to deter our Congressional overlords. At best, such illegality is usually corrected long after the damage is done.
My problem with9 obamacare was that never in our history as a free nation was our gov allowed to force anyone to buy anything against their will simply for being alive. In an extreme example, a man was free to wander the states, making his own clothes or finding discarded clothes, ,finding free food in wildern9ess and dumps or whatever, just living completely free... inside the law of course... if he so chose to and Noone could force hi. To buy anything. His sovereignty meant freedom.
Then along comes obamacare, forcing him to buy healthcare, removing his sovereign right to live free if he so chose to do so. He was penalized simply for being alive, by being forced to buy healthy I sure ce, or be listed as a criminal if he chose not to. Never before was free man zmde a criminal for not buying something that was being forced on him.
Things like requiring person to buy a liscence to drive is different. Th a t is a privilege that one chooses to engage in, whereas a fine for not buying health Insurance is a vio.ation of a sovereign right to exist freely without penalties being imposed
I chalk it up to them being new at it and still trying to figure out how to put the Constitution into practice. I wouldn't refer to it for any precedent, since the trial was never held. The Senate dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Also, I think there’s a difference between civil officer of the United States and office of the United States.
Note that Article I Section 6 requires a Senator to resign in order to hold an Office of the United States, and vice versa. Therefore, they must be two different things. "Civil" Office is just a synonym; it just means that these offices are held by non-elected persons who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A Senator cannot simultaneously hold an office confirmed by Senators, and therefore cannot be impeached and tried by Senators.
-PJ
At the time, I extended that absurdity to ask what would stop Congress from mandating that every American must watch Michael Moore movies or be penalized?
-PJ
Was that what they used?
LOL
I hear ya.
This would not withstand a challenge in a normal sane court.
It likely couldn’t stop him from running again.
He should open the procedure to impeach “President” Biden.
I think you are using the wrong distinction. Taxes should only be used to collect revenue; not to coerce people’s behavior. Fees for licensing should be limited to the amount needed to accomplish the goals of the licensing.
The National Firearms Act, for example, required a two hundred dollar fee to own a short-barreled shotgun. This fee was to discourage ownership of an otherwise legal firearm. In a just world (by which I mean one which is in conformance to our Constitution), this “tax”would have been ruled unConstitutional eighty years ago.
I agree with you, but I really bristle when someone tells me I have to have permission to drive.
If we’re talking about someone unfit to drive, why sure. Other
than that it’s a right to be able to travel for interaction with others
and or to conduct commerce.
Think freedom of association.
No authority should be recognized as being able to impede this.
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.