Posted on 01/26/2021 8:33:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
We conservatives are pretty pissed off at John Roberts, Chief Justice. We remember the cartoon of a week or so ago when the United States Supreme Court was represented as three donkeys, four chickens, and, on the end of the row, two Americans: Justice Alito and Justice Thomas.
But now our Democratic friends want to have a trial of Citizen Trump in the Senate. So I looked up the text of the Constitution online. It says
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Ahem. Do you see the problem here, you strict constructionists, you living constitutionalists, and you, Sen. Chuck E. Schumer (D-NY)? When the proposed trial begins on February 8, Roberts, CJ, can say -- should say -- to the assembled duly sworn multitude: “Sorry chaps. The President of the United States is not on trial. Citizen Trump is on trial. So it would be against the Constitution as written for the Chief Justice to preside. And it would be a grievous blow to the dignity of the Supreme Court and the plain meaning of the Constitution if the Chief Justice were to preside in flagrant violation of the plain words of the Constitution.”
This should not be that hard for the Chief Justice. Back in the day, did he not say, with plain words, in his decision on Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Grassley is not the pro tempore
Leahy is
He will be the “judge” and also will vote
That makes the power structure 49/50 if the Harris seat has been appointed by Feb 8th, right?
It occurs to me that the demon rats are having this kangaroo impeachment in order to ‘institutionalize’ their lies about the fraudulent election. As if stating their lies for the Senate record will give them legitimacy ...
So, if the election shenanigans many saw occurring are someday seen by all, including the courts that refused to look when it was before them, it won’t matter.
This way they have impeached the real President ... again ... ‘fair and square” lol ... with or without election fraud.
And so, now those past and present Senators own two of the three branches outright.
“Come and take it”
I corrected myself.
Please be advised that copyright restrictions apply equally downthread. Thanks.
I don’t agree.
It’s my understanding that several versions of the Second Amendment were circulating at the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, including one with three commas. My own understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment requires only one comma.
I believe that people in that era were simply not very disciplined in the use of commas.
I believe that the Impeachment Clause should be understood as if the comma before “and” is not there. What sense would it make for the government to decide that some crimes render a person unacceptable for one office but not another? If a person had once been convicted by the Senate of such high crimes, why would a future Senate trial not be expected to arrive at the same conclusion based on the same evidence?
I understand that, once convicted, an impeached officer can then be barred for life by a simple majority of the Senate. That makes no sense to me at all.
I believe that the Senate has the power to try Trump and, if convicted, bar him for life from holding Federal office. I also believe that Roberts is obligated to preside. I think the whole idea of having the CJ preside is to discourage the nonsense we are seeing now.
They want this all to go down in the history books as to how they have saved us from PDJT, who was impeached TWICE. Yes, what you said about institutionalizing their lies. Much of what they do is for that purpose, IMHO.
“Leaky” was recently described in an article as being “perpetually drunk”. I thought he was long gone and buried yet he’s still here getting hammered and pissing on everyone.
O Lord hear our prayer.
The people to blame are the perople of Vermont who keep re-electing that classless turd every election cycle.
Electing senators via the state legislatures as the Founding Fathers intended can’t produce worse clowns then the present ones !
Anything not explicitly permitted is not allowed.
Can the Senate impeach a chicken?
Point to the passage in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the impeachment of a chicken!
Regards,
Of course, they are free to subpoena a chicken!
So Congress can just impeach a private citizen and serve as judge and jury? The Constitution is clear you can impeach a President, but Trump isn’t President so what in the heck are they doing. If Trump supposedly committed a crime of inciting violence then that is something for DOJ and the courts not Congress. This impeachment is a joke and is just a private vendetta.
The way I learned it, the future tense goes, "I shall, you will, he will, etc." unless you are conveying emphasis or command, and then it's the opposite: "I will, you shall, he shall, etc." But "scarcely anyone will notice either way." (If scarcely anyone shall notice -- that's an order!)
they do not want him to be able to run for office again.
That’s what I don’t get. You can’t even call this a trial. The Senate can’t try a private citizen. This is nothing more than a communist show trial.
The lack of specifics in the Constitution leaves a hole liberal judges can drive a truck through. Which means the "constitutionality" of the entire process will rest on the opinion of FIVE Supreme Court justices.
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.