Now we know the Left, i.e., the Democrats, The Progressives, the Liberals, The American Communist Party, do not believe in or follow the dictates of our U.S. Constitution...so the remedy is to VOTE them out of office or remove them now for lying in taking their Oath's of Office.
Now we know the Left, i.e., the Democrats, The Progressives, the Liberals, The American Communist Party, do not believe in or follow the dictates of our U.S. Constitution...so the remedy is to VOTE them out of office or remove them now for lying in taking their Oath's of Office.
There is no judicial remedy for impeachment conviction. The sole, ultimate, and final authority on impeachment is vested in the Legislative branch.
There is no judicial remedy for a certification that a constitutional amendment has been ratified by a sufficient number of states to cause it to be adopted. Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)
As the Legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. The rule declared in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 , 669-673, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, is applicable here. See, also Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U.S. 547, 562 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 890.
When the action of another branch is conclusive, the Court cannot review it.
For matters where authority is conferred solely upon the Legislative branch, it is a political matter and the Court does not have jurisdiction, whether the judges are Republicans, Democrats, The Progressives, The Liberals, or the American Communist Party.
The Constitution created Congress. Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress created the Judicial branch. The Constitution provides, "the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulatons as the Congress shall make." Congress can, and has, stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to issue an opinion deciding a case it had already heard. Ex parte McCardle, 73 U.S. 318 (1868).
If the Supreme Court were ever to claim jurisdiction to review a Senate impeachment conviction, Congress could strip the Court of jurisdiction to proceed with that, or any other appellate case. Also, the Congress has the power to reduce the number of justices to one, and to eliminate all Federal courts except the Supreme Court.
There is no violation of anyone's rights where SCOTUS does not entertain a case over which it has no jurisdiction. On impeachment convictions, there is no court jurisdiction. The Court has no authority to decide the case.
The problem does not lie with some specious claim of a bill of attainder. It is the bogus charge itself. There was no insurrection, there was no incitement to insurrection. The charge is political garbage. It has no basis. The Democrats are using the impeachment process as a political tool and evading judicial review. It is decidedly wrong, but it is a demonstration of the raw power of an unrestrained Congress.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019.
insurrection. (15c) A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usu. a government.“A popular tumult is a disorderly gathering of people who refuse to listen to the voice of their superiors, whether they be disaffected towards their superiors themselves or merely towards certain private individuals. These violent movements occur when the people believe themselves harassed, and they are more often caused by tax-collectors than by any other class of public officers. If the anger of the people is directed particularly against the magistrates or other officers invested with the public authority, and if it is carried so far as to result in positive disobedience or acts of violence, the movement is called a sedition. And when the evil extends and wins over the majority of the citizens in a town or province, and gains such strength that the sovereign is no longer obeyed, it is usual to distinguish such an uprising more particularly by the name of an insurrection." Charles G. Fenwick, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law 336 (1916).
“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” 77 C.J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 29, at 579 (1994).
C.J.S. stands for Corpus Juris Secundum, a legal encyclopedia.