Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The constitutional provision doesn’t say what you claim. You’re fabricating what it supposedly means but does not actually say.Wrong again.
I didn’t craft the Constitutional provision. Nor was it my brief or legal argument.
You don’t like it. Tough shit. Your dislike doesn’t control.
UR such a Jackoff.Wrong, you idiot.
He was impeached twice.
You disagree with the implication.The constitutional provision doesn’t say what you claim. You’re fabricating what it supposedly means but does not actually say.
You use a lot of words to say nothing intelligent.UR such a Jackoff.
An absurd end result to which no one subscribes.
Article II, Section 4 must have force. It tells us the president, vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the president.
Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction "shall be removed from Office" if convicted.
"Shall."
As Justice Story explained, "the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound, in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office." Removal is mandatory upon conviction.
Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to somebody who has left office.
The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.
In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term.
But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.
Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.
Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were – and this is extremely important – "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."
Put anther way, in the language of today: President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.
I don't agree with McConnell. But his Senate colleagues did.
And you’re not allowed to claim the constitution actually says what you claim.You disagree with the implication.
You’re allowed.
But your disagreement doesn’t mean that your view is correct.
As always, it sucks to be you.
So yer to stupid to follow McConnell's logic. Not surprising you support Benedict Donald.You use a lot of words to say nothing intelligent.
I don’t give a rat’s rancid twat whether you disagree. You’re a void.
Did you notice that this clause isn’t even specific to the president? Surely you don’t believe that all civil officers need to be impeached before prosecution?Impeachment and removal appear to have been intended as prerequisites to any possible criminal prosecution of a President.
While you aren’t required to agree, at leas the claim itself is buttressed by the very words of the Constitution.
Again, you’re retarded.And you’re not allowed to claim the constitution actually says what you claim.
You want the court to legislate from the bench.
If the text doesn’t say it, then you have to legislate from the bench.Again, you’re retarded.
I didn’t say anything about what it says except to quote it.
I suggested that it entails an implication. And you’re wrong. Of course I’m allowed to say as much.
It does.
I also oppose legislating from the bench. But moron libturds such as you don’t know what that even means. You just use the term despite your ignorance.
Are you sure? Or are you substituting your partisan views for objective thought?Did you notice that this clause isn’t even specific to the president? Surely you don’t believe that all civil officers need to be impeached before prosecution?
Are you familiar with Mitch McConnel's statement following the second impeachment?Wow. You’re so smart.
He was when he was impeached (twice) and never convicted, you idiot. And that’s the point.
Wrong.If the text doesn’t say it, then you have to legislate from the bench.
Ndint care what you allegedly “think.”I don’t think you oppose legislating from the bench all that much.
You are, of course, merely projecting.Only when it is used against your personal preferences
This isn’t about civil immunity, so we can ignore your comments about judges getting civil immunity and lawsuits etc.Are you sure? Or are you substituting your partisan views for objective thought?
You may not comprehend that Judges get immunity. So do public prosecutors. There are (naturally) some exceptions and qualifications. But the thinking is exactly the same.
When a civil officer performs his job or her job, they shouldn’t be sued over it. And they certainly shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted over it — even if you think it’s essentially “criminal” what they did in the performance of their official duties.
Im not a firm textualist. I’m just pointing out how hollow conservative jurisprudence is. They are textualists when they want to be. They’re not when it’s inconvenient.Wrong.
It’s amusing to see you now pretending to be a firm textualist, though.
Ndint care what you allegedly “think.”
You are, of course, merely projecting.
No human being gets immunity from breaking the law. Period. Non starter.This thread is not about the pros and cons of SCOTUS taking up the case for immunity, but it is to discuss the concept of presidential immunity at face value. This morning I listened to political pundits who think Trump will lose on this issue and more that believe he has a strong case.
The concept is whether Trump or Biden or any other President in office can be prosecuted after the fact for decisions, executive orders, policy edicts, negotiations, actions within the scope of Presidential powers. If he can be prosecuted by subsequent administrations or sued by the private sector, what President would not be vulnerable to being sued, persecuted, for pretty much any controversial action to prevent him/her from running for a second term or any other reason?
Example only and NOT intended to be another discussion on J6 or the border or the ACA or any other issue:
Let's assume Biden loses in 2024 but was physically capable of running again in 2028. What if the Trump DOJ decided to prosecute Joe Biden for failure to enforce immigration laws while serving as President and/or for encouraging millions of migrants to invade our country at massive expense and risk for American citizens? What President has not made some decision either domestic or in foreign relations that somebody has not declared illegal?
What if Obama had lost in 2012 and Romney's DOJ decided to prosecute him for lying to the American public and Congress about being able to keep their current doctor and not telling anyone how the ACA would reorganize the existing medical delivery system at great cost and inconvenience and often measurable harm to the American people?
There is good reason for the Constitutional provision that it is the prerogative of the American people via their elected representatives to remove a President for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and that power is given to no other. The House of Representatives has already charged Trump with 'incitement of insurrection' by the House of Representatives but he was acquitted on the grounds of 'no merit to the case' by the U.S. Senate.
That should have ended the matter right there. Not only was the constitutional provision used and no other, not even a sitting President, is given power to overturn that process, but there could also be an issue of double jeopardy in play when the current administration just relabeled the original 'offense' as something else. SCOTUS should not allow that.
Summary:
In my opinion, the President, good or bad, right or wrong, competently or incompetently has to be able to make tough decisions within his Presidential powers that are going to be unpopular with many without worrying about the legal repercussions to himself personally after he leaves office. And further, once acquitted in the impeachment process, a President should not have his right to protection via double jeopardy removed by a new administration. That is how SCOTUS should rule.
NOTE: You can change your vote if the discussion changes your mind.
After December 14, 2020 when all 50 state certified their slate of electors the election was over. There was no constitutional means to delay the counting of true electors past January 6, 2021. Biden won.he petition of grievances asked for--ASKED, not demand or else--for the certification of the election to be delayed a short time for the investigations of election fraud to be completed
This isn’t about civil immunity, so we can ignore your comments about judges getting civil immunity and lawsuits etc
If a civil officer engages in fraud or corruption as part of their official duties, they absolutely should be prosecuted and the constitution makes it perfectly clear that they can.
Are you sure? Or are you substituting your partisan views for objective thought?
You may not comprehend that Judges get immunity. So do public prosecutors. There are (naturally) some exceptions and qualifications. But the thinking is exactly the same.
When a civil officer performs his job or her job, they shouldn’t be sued over it. And they certainly shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted over it — even if you think it’s essentially “criminal” what they did in the performance of their official duties.