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???
Attainder is charging someone with a crime that someone else committed.
piss Cachalot
Thomas Porteous, a federal judge from Louisiana, was convicted in 2010 on 4 counts, removed from office, and disqualified from Federal office by a Senate vote of 94-2.
Look it up.
No, that is not the definition. Here is the definition.
The Democrats may come to rue their impeachments of Trump as setting precedents for a low standard of proof. If the GOP wins the House and Senate in 2022, impeachment of Biden and Harris for election fraud and other misconduct may well be on the table, with the GOP House Speaker to succeed as President if they are convicted.
Court rulings trump judgements of congress.
Alcee Hastings was found not guilty of the crime he was impeached and removed for by a court of law.
The impeachment stood but disqualification could not be imposed.
Correct.
A “Bill of Attainder” is basically when the Legislature
attempts to usurp the power/authority of the Judiciary.
Almost everything you read about this is wrong... most of it put up by people who don’t know, who have never studied it, but have an opinion driven by how the heat of the moment influences their concern.
The Constitution empowers the Congress to impeach government officials.
The Constitution, quite wrongly today, assumes good faith and good judgement will constrain excess.
Presidents, once they are out of office, remain subject to that rule, and may be impeached, as they remain in offices of trust. They continue to be paid. They continue to be provided unique access to information. A security clearance is a foothold inside the process... but also a point of attachment to it ? As a former commander in chief, Presidents are not that different than other members of the military who, as officers, upon leaving service, remain as commissioned officers who are still subject to recall in the event of urgent need, while inactive. It’s not just a job.
The attendant risks are easily enough avoidable, though... if you choose to voluntarily relinquish those sorts of attachments. They can’t hold you to an obligation against your will... after you’ve already surrendered it.
However, once Trump is out of office, the whole point, from Democrats point of view... is that an impeachment provides a set of remedies that extends to denying him the right to ever fill public office, again. And, that’s why they’re doing it... hoping to prevent Trump running again in 2024.
But, they’d still need cooperation from Senate Republicans to make that happen... it requiring a separate vote on imposing that penalty in addition to voting to convict un the impeachment first. Odds of that happening, pretty close to zero... going negative and inverting over time, perhaps ?
Along the way, of course, they’ll hope that conducting a witch hunt impeachment, again, would provide them with some fodder to funnel to federal, state and local courts... in order to sustain their witch hunt in other venue in future.
That it’s obvious as a horribly bad idea isn’t a restraint on Democrats right now... apparent even just given a look at the range of horribly bad legislation already being tabled. They’re already seeking to conduct purges of political opposition throughout government, including converting the FBI and the DOJ into their own SS and Gestapo... while elevating Antifa/BLM to above the law, and declaring anyone who opposes them to be a terrorist:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3925167/posts
Your definition describes a legislature performing the function of a court - the US Constitution forbids congress from enforcing judgements not made by the courts.
The courts trump the congress in the US.
Attainder was used in England to charge relatives of criminals with the crime the original offender committed regardless if they actually committed the crime.
“First passed in 1459, such bills were employed, more particularly during the reigns of the Tudor kings, as a species of extrajudicial procedure, for the direct punishment of political offences. Dispensing with the ordinary judicial forms and precedents, they took away from the accused whatever advantages he might have gained in the courts of law; such evidence only was admitted as might be necessary to secure conviction; indeed, in many cases bills of attainder were passed without any evidence being produced at all. In the reign of Henry VIII they were much used, through a subservient parliament, to punish those who had incurred the king’s displeasure; many distinguished victims who could not have been charged with any offence under the existing laws being by this means disposed of.”
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/attainder.htm
Agree.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/506/224
“Or McConnel, apparently..”
Schumer
Biden is already lobbying to slow the roll... some advocating that saying its because the drama would interfere with implementing his agenda.
A few might argue it as necessary to lower the temperature now before the Capitol is invaded again, only for real...
Reality is probably closer to acknowledging the fear that Trump’s defense will succeed as a proof of his innocence, along with both an indictment and proof of others guilt.
There is precedent for impeachment and trial after a federal officer has left office.
“Is it constitutional” is a quaint question. It is impossible for the government to do something unconstitutional. No matter what they do, they label it constitutional. In this case, Congress is the sole branch involved. There is plenty of opinion out there that it is unconstitutional, but that’s nothing more than academic blather.
JD since about 22 years.
That's how it was used, but that's not the definition of attainder. The definition is given above.
Good point. IOW, be careful what you wish for.
The senate is hardly going to be in existence in a few weeks much less trying anyone. You are still watching TV. Stop it!
I would think there are going to be serious challenges to any attempt to convict him after he is out of office. My read is the charges are moot because he is no longer in office and are dismissed.
If you could do this, what is to stop a future Congress from retroactively impeaching Obama, Clinton, et al.? It is somewhat absurd.
A bill of attainder is, in context of legislative acts, a legislative body convicting someone of a crime and imposing penalties by legislative act, as by passing a law, or otherwise by a legislature voting to convict or punish someone. The Constitution forbids it... mostly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
There are two exceptions defined in the Constitution:
One, in the case of impeachment... where it is legislatures alone who act, although with judicial participation required in the case of the President being impeached, as the Chief Justice presides...
That (mostly, again) means that if you’re not able to be impeached, you can’t be subjected to attainder.
However, attainder, as it exists in the judicial meaning of it versus the legislative sense, means a court empowered in similarly stripping a person of civil rights and property rights, which, in the Constitution, is allowed in the case of treason... in which case attainder is allowed, but only within the limits of the lifetime of a person, with no corruption of blood... meaning no inheritance of guilt or punishment.
Here in the U.S. understanding:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/46-corruption-of-the-blood-and-forfeiture.html
Here in the English view, which, prior to this change in 1814, was one of the major injustices that served as a driving factor in the Revolutionary War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_of_Blood_Act_1814
I would argue that civil forfeiture as it is practiced today runs afoul of the prohibition on attainder AND corruption of blood... while also obviating civil right, property rights, and due process in its imposition. It empowers police to act as prosecutor, judge and jury in takings that occur FAR outside due process...
It won’t happen. President Trump did not resign for the purpose of evading conviction, so the Senate won’t try him after the end of his term.
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.