Skip to comments.The Senate Cannot Impeach Donald Trump
Posted on 01/27/2021 5:34:12 AM PST by Moseley
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has delivered Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump and the appointment of Impeachment Managers to the U.S. Senate on January 25. The Senate cannot legally hold a trial on impeachment of a President or other official who has already left office.
As we will watch, the Senate has extensive, long-established procedures -- but only as its own rules. The Senate must convene the next day at 1:00 P.M. But the Senate typically schedules the actual trial for later. Chuck Schumer says the trial will start February 8. Senate rules require a trial, whereas the Constitution only allows the Senate to hold a trial should they choose. No trial is required. But in any trial, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be taken up first.
Remember: Democrats in the House were conducting impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon for some serious crimes. It appeared that the votes were there in the Senate to remove Nixon from office. But when Nixon resigned, the entire effort stopped. Democrats then believed that they did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with impeachment. In December 2019, when Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested impeaching Barack Obama no longer in office, the Washington Post “fact checked” the idea as unlikely, with more professors arguing against than for.
There have been a couple past impeachments of former officials. But those cannot override the Constitution. It is unconstitutional even if the Congress impeached a few former officials before. There is no “precedent” that can change the Constitution.
To interpret our short Constitution, lawyers examine legal experiences from England and the American colonies as illuminating what the drafters of our Constitution were possibly thinking. That includes noticing when our Founders sharply diverged intentionally from English legal traditions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Early state constitutions are strongly inconsistent from one another, providing no guidance. However, the Massachusetts’ constitution is almost identical to the U.S. Constitution on this topic, with New Hampshire close. It offers no support for impeachment of former officials. Thus, it appears that the Constitutional Convention chose to follow the Massachusetts model while distinctly rejecting examples from other States. Despite the fact that some states knew how to explicitly allow for impeachment of former officials when they wanted to, neither the U.S. nor Massachusetts Constitution chose to follow the examples of other States. See, Brian C. Kalt, The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials: An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment, 6 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 13 (2001-2002).
Also, the U.S. Constitution rejects English tradition by shifting criminal prosecution after impeachment over to the regular courts. That is a sharp change. England’s Parliament could prosecute former officials for anything. But our Constitution explicitly divests Congress of prosecution after removal and entrusts the separate judicial branch for follow-up.
The U.S. Constitution segregates criminal prosecution by naming the President as the only prosecutor (who of course appoints assistants) and making the judiciary the only real courts. By contrast, the English Parliament had the ability to try anyone itself.
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT:
But yesterday 45 Senators voted to declare the proceedings illegal.Of course that won't stop Chuck "Twelve Ways From Sunday" Schumer but it seems unlikely that there will be more than 55 votes for "conviction".
The Commierats really want a fight don’t they?
It’s simple: Impeachment and the trial is for removing sitting Presidents and officials, not former Presidents and officials
*IF* he did anything wrong then he’s subject to criminal justice system and it’s laws as a private citizen so they should go there if they think he did something criminal. Of course he didn’t do anything wrong or criminal in nature on Nov 6
Trump has been charged with lying about election fraud.
Can he introduce the thousands of affidavits into evidence supporting his claims? Can he call witnesses?
Or is this a star chamber show trial CCP “struggle session” to punish a political opponent?
Dems like Harris called for riots and destruction to continue. Should she be impeached?
Or is there a lower racist expectation and blacks should be legally allowed to riot because they can’t be expected to behave better? When mostly white folks push shove and break their way into a building (no statues destroyed, no fires set) the FBI has billboards up nationally to catch them? Why the unequal treatment under the law? Blacks “let off steam.” Whites stage a “coup” or “insurrection.”
The leftists want conservatives [Trump supporters] to go kinetic.
The impeachment serves many purposes. They want Donald Trump convicted of insurrection so he can’t run again. They want to expand the Senate’s power and reach. They want to demoralize us. They want to send a message to any other outsiders that think they’re going to upset the status quo. They want to label us as violent radicals so they can turn the government against us. And so on
Who’s up for a vote of no confidence on Biden?
And a couple hundred others for Dems in the Senate and House?
It seems that the trial will just be a chance for days of Democrat senators making speeches about how horrible Trump is, like they did during the impeachment proceedings in 2019/2020, as if that will change the minds of anyone. The RINO senators like Romney will join them and the Republican senators hoping for a political future will defend Trump more or less sincerely.
And one more you did not mention. Possibly the primary one. They want to send a clear message that no Republican of any quality had better ever consider running for high office again. That if you want your life to be destroyed run for office as a Republican.
Our side just can’t come to grips with the current reality. Articles are constantly being written about what so-and-so can’t do. The Senate can’t impeach Trump, Pelosi can’t do this, Schumer can’t do that.
The persons in power can do whatever they want. The Constitution doesn’t mean what you interpret it to mean. It means what they interpret it to mean. And when challenged in the Supreme Court, the justices will vote exactly the way Roberts tells them to vote.
The entire US Govt is a criminal Enterprise Network that makes the ‘former’ mafia and current worldwide cartels and other hoodlum groups look like child’s play! Fear that it has been that way for decades but just much worse since the kinton days then ratcheted up again during nobama with Brennan ‘hammer’ hold over the Pravda media and any one else of prominence - at least since post WWII since the consolidation of Hitler’s gestapo with the CIA and other alphabets by Dulles, Bush and others....our situation SUCKS to high heaven today that’s for sure!
Technically speaking, the Senate cannot Impeach anyone. That happens in the House.
They’ve lied and stolen so what makes you think they’ll follow a bunch of rules on an old piece of paper?
is Senate memo passed to confirm McCain as a Natural Born Citizen, “... born of American citizens on a US military base”.
Harris is an unnatural born native with no American citizen parents. She is unlawfully occupying the office of Vice President of the US, for which she is unqualified for lack of being a Natural Born Citizen, as defined in the Senate Resolution 511. It's a prima fascia case using public documents from the US Senate.
Or in the words of Senator Arlen Specter: "not proved under Scottish law"
“Technically speaking, the Senate cannot Impeach anyone. That happens in the House.”
I didn’t write the headline. ‘Nuff said, wink, wink
Love the guys there, though
“Articles are constantly being written about what so-and-so can’t do.”
We have to clarify what is true and knock down the lies and convince everyone that our enemy is 100% wrong, not deserving of respect, and without merit.
But then we need to fight like hell in rhetorical and political hand to hand combat (rhetorically speaking).
But they will.
The Democrats (with the help of the media) aren’t held up by rules, regulations or Constitutions.
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.