Posted on 02/12/2021 6:47:49 AM PST by Red Badger
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer Thursday did not rule out bringing legislation to bar former President Donald Trump from office if he is not convicted at the ongoing Senate impeachment trial.
Democratic senators have discussed in recent weeks that if they cannot secure the 67 votes needed to convict Trump — and bar him from holding office in a subsequent simple-majority vote — that they might invoke the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to do the same.
Schumer, D‑N. Y., was asked about the possibility in a press conference ahead of the impeachment trial proceedings Thursday.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-leaves-door-open-to-14th-amendment-measure-to-bar-trump-from-office
Uhm, that would be a Bill of Attainder and is expressly forbidden in the US Costitution.
I do not consent for this globalist yankee bastard to make any decision concerning the governance of myself, my family or my business.
Come and get it, Chuck you dirty rat bastard.
I hate headlines like this: Schumer scared...
Really? I highly doubt he’s scared. He’s making money hand over fist, he’s in charge of the senate. His criminal cabal has complete control of our government, and the media will kiss his arse any time it’s presented.
Schumer just wants to keep attention on Trump so the stupid American public doesn’t notice how badly Biden is hosing them.
Will the public ever ask why the Democrats are so scared of this guy?
Schumer’s comments to Chief Justice Roberts about the Supreme Court justices will regret making a decision he does not like just might come back to haunt him. Karma is a bitch.
The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The powers that be ignore it at their leisure.
They just have to pack the Supreme Court and anything they want they can do legally.
The Rats, RINOs and Never Trumpers must really fear Trump.
“...is expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.”
LOL! The Constitution no longer is “a thing”.
Bigly!
The left has been doing a lot of things that are forbidden by the US Constitution. No one in authority seems to stop them. Most support the violations wholeheartedly.
Then the next day Chuck can start the impeachment of the Republican party so they can never run for or hold office ever again to install and protect pure democracy !!!
I thought Trump was hated nationwide. Why ot let him run and get 30% of the vote like we were told last time. Trump is the rightful leader and anyone who takes orders from a fake commander has no standing with me.
Thanks...
Per Wiki
The United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder: in federal law under Article I, Section 9, and in state law under Article I, Section 10. The fact that they were banned even under state law reflects the importance that the Framers attached to this issue.
Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was partially reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
Every state constitution also expressly forbids bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin’s constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
Contrast this with the Texan Constitution: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made”. It is unclear whether a contract that calls for heirs to be deprived of their estate is allowed under this law.
Supreme Court cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.
Two of the United States Supreme Court’s first decisions on the meaning of the bill of attainder clause came after the American Civil War. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the court struck down a federal law requiring attorneys practising in federal court to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. In Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), the Missouri Constitution required anyone seeking a professional’s license from the state to swear they had not supported the rebellion. The Supreme Court overturned the law and the constitutional provision, arguing that the people already admitted to practice were subject to penalty without judicial trial. The lack of judicial trial was the critical affront to the Constitution, the Court said.
They will pronounce the living breathing constitution died.
^ 4 later
This just comes off as rage and obsession. The American people aren’t even interested.
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.