Posted on 01/25/2021 10:18:35 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
I think something else will preclude Biden running again.
IMHO, President Trump should ignore the democrats’ show trial entirely. The only purpose of the show trial is to placate the democrats’ far left wing.
If he does not ignore it, then he should file suit in a carefully selected conservative judicial district and seek a nationwide injunction on the grounds that a Senate show trial of a former President is unconstitutional.
Trump was impeached as President, but the term expired and the impeachment becomes moot, just as a bill passed in Congress becomes moot if not signed by the end of the term of Congress.
There should be no trial because the penalty of removal from office has already occurred. Trying Trump would be a double-jeopardy: he was removed from office by the Electoral College, and now the Senate is seeking to remove him a second time even though he's already left office.
-PJ
Thats because its not an impeachment. Roberts won’t come. Its a show trial which means nothing. Trump should ignore it. And he should run for office and go to the supreme court if they try to stop him.
Doesn’t matter. The theory is the same. Ex-officer.
The only difference the title President makes is the issue of whether Roberts presides...but there still can be a trial.
The Senate chose not to impose the punishment of disqualification on Hastings.
Trump will not have standing.....
Under Article I, section 3 of the Constitution, upon conviction by the Senate, an impeached federal official is removed from office and the Senate has the option (but is not required) to also prohibit the official from holding any federal office in the future. I cannot recall any prior impeachment where the Senate elected to prohibit an impeached official (I believe that all prior convictions were judges like Hastings) from holding future federal office.
Leaky Leahy?! I honestly didn’t know he was still alive.
That's probably not true, but set that aside for a minute.
Trump was impeached (this time) while he was President of the United States, so EVEN IF the "power of impeachment" granted to the House in Article I does not extend to private citizens, it would not apply here.
If the Senate is the jury, how can there be a jurist presiding over the trial? Another admission from the left that this whole thing is fake.
Impeachment is for office holders, to remove them from office.
Holding an impeachment trial on a private citizen is not constitutional.
The Senate isn't even a branch, it is a chamber of the bicameral Congress. It cannot speak for Congress alone, except within its plenary power of advice and consent, and treaty ratification.
Regarding impeachment, the Senate already has the consent of the House, but it still cannot compel the Chief Justice to appear (the Constitution would, if conditions apply). If the Senate disapproves of the Chief Justice's behavior, it can always seek the House to level impeachment charges against the Chief Justice for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or failure to demonstrate Article III "good behavior." On the latter point, "good behavior" does not mean refusal to cave to the demands of Congress, as much as Pelosi and Schumer wish it to be.
It appears that the Chief Justice took the literal meaning of the Constitution and decided that the President is not being tried and therefore his appearance is not called for. It is his call to make, and he made it. Based on that, citizen Trump should appeal to the Supreme Court to rule that the trial is unconstitutional because there is no penalty; he has already been removed from office by the Electoral College.
-PJ
The only remedy of conviction is removal of the president.
Biden is the only president we have.
Convict Trump - Remove Biden.
Belknap is not much in the way of precedent and certainly is not a controlling one.
William Belknap was the Secretary of War under President Grant. He was impeached by the House, resigned, and was then tried by the Senate. He argued that the Senate no longer had jurisdiction since he had resigned, and a majority of the Senate voted that they did. He was then acquitted by the Senate and the issue became moot.
Just keep whispering “Patriot Party” in McConnell’s ear.
it’s surprising how many posters on FR get an F in civics.
Apparently, he is saying he doesn’t have the authority as per Constitution as he interprets it
But the Senate could come back and designate him giving him the authority
Then it would be back to him to refuse.
I would presume the Senate would normally not do that if they knew Roberts would refuse..but these are not normal times.
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.