Can we have a bifurcated impeachment trial

[radical right]

The Constitution states:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction.

the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

Can the senate vote to disqualify, without a 2/3 rds vote to convict?

The president, unlike the vast majority of people impeached, he can be allowed to finish his term, yet disqualified from serving another term, or in another office.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

Can the senate vote to disqualify, without a 2/3 rds vote to convict?

The president, unlike the vast majority of people impeached, he can be allowed to finish his term, yet disqualified from serving another term, or in another office.

Would "disqualification" need to be a separate vote from a removal vote?

 

[radical right]

Would "disqualification" need to be a separate vote from a removal vote?

That's the question i'm posing? The two votes historically have been two separate votes.

My question is, can they vote for disqualification even if the removal vote fails.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

That's the question i'm posing? The constitution can be interpreted either way.

Clinton escaped a super-majority vote but I believe he received a simple majority for removal [It was his second term and made him ineligible to run again anyway] but he did float the idea of staying in office past his expiration date when the 2000 election was still up in the air...no one mentioned that it was unconstitutional due to the impeachment...
...Can you imagine the media uproar if trump tried to pull that?

 

[radical right]

Clinton escaped a super-majority vote but I believe he received a simple majority for removal [It was his second term and made him ineligible to run again anyway] but he did float the idea of staying in office past his expiration date when the 2000 election was still up in the air...no one mentioned that it was unconstitutional due to the impeachment...
...Can you imagine the media uproar if trump tried to pull that?

Bush V Gore was a controversial USSC decision that took years for the court to live down. There had been previous elections where the vote was questionable, and the congress was invoked to settle the election. The USSC decided that there was a requirement to avoid following the constitutions congressional method of settling disputed elections.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Constitution states:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification

Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction.

the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

Can the senate vote to disqualify, without a 2/3 rds vote to convict?

The president, unlike the vast majority of people impeached, he can be allowed to finish his term, yet disqualified from serving another term, or in another office.

No. You are disqualified from further office only if first removed from office.

 

[radical right]

No. You are disqualified from further office only if first removed from office.

That's one view, but the Constitution doesn't specify the order for the two judgments. Hence it's possible to vote on either judgement.

Unless you can find a clause specifying a "do this, than that"

 

[radical right]

No. You are disqualified from further office only if first removed from office.

If that were true, what would happen in the case of somebody resigning before or during the impeachment trial. They can't vote to remove somebody from an office they no longer occupy. This under your theory, they would be prevented from disqualifying him from holding another office of honor.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No. You are disqualified from further office only if first removed from office.

That's one view, but the Constitution doesn't specify the order for the two judgments. Hence it's possible to vote on either judgement.

Unless you can find a clause specifying a "do this, than that"

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

That is the order of judgement, limited to the language employed. Because one is removed from office, one is also disqualified from holding further office.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No. You are disqualified from further office only if first removed from office.

If that were true, what would happen in the case of somebody resigning before or during the impeachment trial. They can't vote to remove somebody from an office they no longer occupy. This under your theory, they would be prevented from disqualifying him from holding another office of honor.

That is correct. Consider human nature.

 

[radical right]

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

That is the order of judgement, limited to the language employed. Because one is removed from office, one is also disqualified from holding further office.

If they wanted it in that order they would have said so.
shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and then disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor

This looks like an additive order of operation. Such as 1 + 2 = 3
Which also allows for 2 + 1 = 3

 

[radical right]

That is the order of judgement, limited to the language employed. Because one is removed from office, one is also disqualified from holding further office.

Those are two separate issues.

disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction.
the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

Disqualification is by no means automatic. It requires a separate vote.

 

[Circe]

No. You are disqualified from further office only if first removed from office.

That's one view, but the Constitution doesn't specify the order for the two judgments. Hence it's possible to vote on either judgement.

Unless you can find a clause specifying a "do this, than that"

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

That is the order of judgement, limited to the language employed. Because one is removed from office, one is also disqualified from holding further office.

Good. He scared me for a minute. It was an interesting point.