Questions about the Senate trial

[bill718]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

 

[ReinyDays]

Justice Roberts is given a set of rules by which the trial will be conducted ... he has no say in these rules ... he's obligated to follow them to the letter, and make everyone else follow them as well ... he'll preside by calling the names in the order he's given ... he will be the least among equals ...

When the Constitution was written ... the title "President" was the lowest of the lows, the bottom among earls, barons and kings ... so to preside over something carried little weight ... Justice Roberts has absolutely no judicial control in this matter ...

 

[OKTexas]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

Depends on the rules the senate establishes.

.

 

[blackhawk]

It's my understanding he is to make sure both sides abide by the rules for impeachment that are agreed to by both sides before the impeachment starts.

 

[Hossfly]

These are the Senate rules.


The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

The concept of impeachment originated in England and was adopted by many of the American colonial governments and state constitutions. As adopted by the framers, this congressional power is a fundamental component of the constitutional system of “checks and balances.” Through the impeachment process, Congress charges and then tries an official of the federal government for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not specified in the Constitution and has long been subject to debate.

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office.

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's my understanding he is to make sure both sides abide by the rules for impeachment that are agreed to by both sides before the impeachment starts.

The democrats have no say in the rules at all, the republicans can and will set ALL the rules.

 

[Thunk]

I don't know the answer but I assume the role of Roberts will be very minor/limited.

The turtle said he wanted to follow the rules of the clinton impeachment and the chief justice didn't play a big role in that.

When undoing an election of the people...nobody really want their hands on it.

 

[White 6]

It's my understanding he is to make sure both sides abide by the rules for impeachment that are agreed to by both sides before the impeachment starts.

The democrats have no say in the rules at all, the republicans can and will set ALL the rules.

Maybe, maybe not. Rules do not require 2/3 of those present, only a simple majority. 4 republicans could side with the Democrats and some rules might go their way, depending on who actually shows up to vote on the rules.

 

[Thunk]

It's stated in the constitution a two-thirds vote to remove a president.

 

[Hossfly]

It's my understanding he is to make sure both sides abide by the rules for impeachment that are agreed to by both sides before the impeachment starts.

The democrats have no say in the rules at all, the republicans can and will set ALL the rules.

Maybe, maybe not. Rules do not require 2/3 of those present, only a simple majority. 4 republicans could side with the Democrats and some rules might go their way, depending on who actually shows up to vote on the rules.

The link in post #5 explains the entire process.

 

[Jackson]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

Good Question. Ken Starr would know.

 

[White 6]

It's my understanding he is to make sure both sides abide by the rules for impeachment that are agreed to by both sides before the impeachment starts.

The democrats have no say in the rules at all, the republicans can and will set ALL the rules.

Maybe, maybe not. Rules do not require 2/3 of those present, only a simple majority. 4 republicans could side with the Democrats and some rules might go their way, depending on who actually shows up to vote on the rules.

The link in post #5 explains the entire process.

Rules is a procedural vote, hence 51 votes. The actual vote on the article of impeachment, as your post properly stated would require 2/3. How they hold the trial is not cut in stone, yet, though the outcome is all but assured.

 

[Jackson]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

Depends on the rules the senate establishes.

.

 

[Jackson]

Someone said the Senate makes up the rules. Has anyone read that?

 

[The Purge]

Who needs know nothing witnesses?

Trump impeachment: Senate GOP unites behind a no-witness trial - New York Post
3 days ago · After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump’s impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal. ... But they don’t want to dismiss the House Democrats’ charges out of hand, as some ...

 

[Hossfly]

Someone said the Senate makes up the rules. Has anyone read that?

See post #5 and the link, Jackson

 

[OKTexas]

I don't know the answer but I assume the role of Roberts will be very minor/limited.

The turtle said he wanted to follow the rules of the clinton impeachment and the chief justice didn't play a big role in that.

When undoing an election of the people...nobody really want their hands on it.

The senators can not speak during the trial, if they want to ask a question of one side or the other, they must submit them in writing through the Chief Justice.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Someone said the Senate makes up the rules. Has anyone read that?

Rules for the Clinton impeachment were adopted 100/0.

.

 

[Andylusion]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT:

Maybe some of you folks can answer a few questions about a wild card in this impeachment trial few have discussed:

What is the role of Chief Justice Roberts? I know he is to "preside" over this Senate trial, but what exactly does that mean? Does he act just like a judge in a criminal trial? Can he rule on subpoenas? What powers (if any) does he have at his disposal if he thinks one side or the other is acting unfairly?

Frankly I don't know the answers, and the Constitution is rather vague on this. Any input would be appreciated.

Justice Roberts is given a set of rules by which the trial will be conducted ... he has no say in these rules ... he's obligated to follow them to the letter, and make everyone else follow them as well ... he'll preside by calling the names in the order he's given ... he will be the least among equals ...

When the Constitution was written ... the title "President" was the lowest of the lows, the bottom among earls, barons and kings ... so to preside over something carried little weight ... Justice Roberts has absolutely no judicial control in this matter ...

So I copied ReinyDays post, because it was the clearest simplest accurate response.

But just to clarify a bit more, the person who presides over the Senate, has the least power of anyone. Their job is simply to enforce the rules over the Senate, that the Senate created for itself.

It is a bit like a police officer, with even less autonomy. A police officer has zero ability to determine law. He can only enforce the law.

To understand why this is, go to a high school debate club, when the teacher isn't present, and one one is assigned to take their place.

It may start off fine, but pretty soon "hey you used up your 5 minutes!" "No I didn't!" "yes you did!" "I'll give him a minute from my time!" "You can't do that!" "yes I can!".

Pretty soon they are all arguing over the rules of the debate, and who did or didn't break the rules, than they are actually discussing whatever topic.

The person presiding over the Senate, will have virtually no input at all. He won't determine the rules. He won't make judgements on the arguments being given. He will simply follow the directions he is given to follow.

The senate will determine the rules. The senate will determine what he is to do. The senate will determine how much time people have. What order they will be called. Everything that is done, will be because the senate determined it.

The purpose of the president over the Senate, is simply to enforce the rules, that the Senate itself, determined. So when someone's time limit is up, he tells them so. Sorry your time is up. "but but but!" No your time is up. And they move on. That's all he does.

ReinyDays said it best.... "he will be the least among equals".

 

[Jackson]

Someone said the Senate makes up the rules. Has anyone read that?

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia