Posted on 01/14/2021 11:54:31 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator
The senate plans to try Trump as a private citizen. Is this even legal/Constitutional? The expressed purpose of an impeachment trial is to remove a government functionary from office. If the senate trial is held after Trump leaves office, what would be the point???
At this point, who knows what’s likely or not - or even legal for that matter. Congress has repeatedly violated the Constitution and has rendered it moot at this point. We are now at the dawn of a new openly Fascist police state that is not rule of law, but rule of the mob. Anything is now possible.
The working assumption of most scholars is that resignation or the end of a term stops the impeachment proceeding. Otherwise, with the holding of office no longer at stake, a ban from future office or the forfeiture of pension become the only punishments available. A trial before a legislative body for such a purpose would likely be an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Dems will try anything to get back at Trump. Currently in Breaking News is a thread on how they want to ban Trump from ever going to the Capitol in the future.
Forever.
I swear. These liberal idiots give the Babylon Bee a run for the money.
I believe their goal is to make him ineligible to hold another public office. They are that scared of him.
I don't know if a conviction in the Senate make him ineligible? Anyone?
Some will claim it only applies to capital crimes (murder, etc.) but the Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder, i.e., laws aimed to criminally punish a single citizen.
Oh - I forgot.
There is no Constitution anymore.
Exactly. The core purpose of a senate trial to remove a functionary from office. All that other stuff presupposes the senate had jurisdiction over such a case to begin with, which it wouldn’t.
Yep - TDS
bump
“U.S. Grant’s Attorney General was impeached after resigning, so the precedent is there.”
It is true that they have proceeded against officials that have already resigned, but the issue has never gone before a court because the action caused no injury for which to bring a case (the guy’s already out of office)
Congress can put on a performance but that doesn’t mean that it has any legal consequence
No. See Dershowitz.
I believe this was the only time it was done. If true, then it’s not much of a precedent.
Dershowitz says it is unconstitutional. The impeachment process was intended to remove sitting office holders. There was a case in 1876 when the former Secretary of War was tried by the Senate. He was not convicted. The criminal justice system is where private citizens are held accountable.
Senator Cotton agrees with Dershowitz that there should be no trial. Trump team will file a motion with the courts to prevent the trial. SCOTUS will decide. Most legal experts say Trump will win his court challenge.
“Not legal.
See: “Bill Of Attainder”.”
It isn’t an attainder.
The congress can only conduct prosecution of government officials not private citizens.
However Trump doesn’t become a private citizen until Jan.20.
That’s why they are rushing the process.
Not if Trump files an objection with the courts and wins. Congress can’t use the impeachment process against a private citizen.
Imagine if this goes forward. Can Obama be impeached and convicted? Jimmy Carter? Thomas Jefferson?
I think the purpose if impeachment is to protect government of, by, and for the people from infection by identifying and accusing bad people who either are in positions of high public trust, or were in such positions, and while there, showed that they were willing to abuse that trust. Some such bad people are current office holders. Some were in office but are no longer in government. In the former case, a Senate trial leading to a conviction both takes the convicted person out of office and prevents them from ever going back in. In the latter case, the latter consequence only is visited on the former officeholder in question, which is no minor consequence, and probably easily justifiable in many different situations, just not with Trump.
My guess would be the democrats will claim the impeachment is legal because it BEGAN while Trump was president.
Only SCOTUS could overrule them and its loaded with Bush rats.
Minor difference, I think you’re thinking of William W. Belknap, Grant’s Secy of War. But yes, impeachment and trial took place after his resignation. Not entirely sure that’s a precedent though. The propriety of a trial after out of the administration never went before a court, and he was considered guilty by most, but virtually all of the Senators voting not guilty indicated they did so because they had no jurisdiction over a former employee rather than because he was innocent.
Thanks. Makes perfect sense.
Exactly! Some slopes are indeed slippery.
The purpose of impeachment is to prevent law enforcement from overthrowing the federal government by arresting executive, legislative or judicial personnel.
Unless one of the above is removed by impeachment first it is treason to arrest them.
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.