Constitutional or not?

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
51,410
Reaction score
18,429
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
Trump will be tried AND convicted in the liberal news media, this trial is just to set that up. That and allow Dems a media opp to spew faux rage over GOP senators who vote no.
There is a possibility it could squeak by. If so, it is worth the time. It is a political trial and does not interfer with actual criminal charges or lawsuits, so it does not limit options to send a message. We are not going to put up with dumb ass presidential demagogues sicking mobs of lawless people on government when they lose an election. It just isn't done, at least til now and we don't wish it to be repeated because it was allowed without consequences. He simply needs to be stripped of any perks or entitlements after leaving office as is deserving none, no staff (except for security) no allowance, no payments, nothing he didn't come to office with and should be banned from further participation except at the ballot box, casting is own ballot, but never holding an office of public trust as he has proven himself not to be trusted. It will be good to put all of the Senate on record to see who supports insurrection spurred by sitting elected officials and who support America, our constitution, our laws, our traditions, our free elections.
^^^ triggered left winger who seeks revenge and shits pants at the thought of facing Trump in another election. ^^^ this is what left wing fear looks like.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
51,410
Reaction score
18,429
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice. :oops:
/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.
"Lynching"?? :wtf:

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?
And yet Pelosi and the Dem leadership were fine with Dems forcing their way in. The hypocrisy and double standards are off the scale.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Trump will probably lose the constitutionality debate. And there are two different scenarios for that.

If he takes it to the Supreme Court, he'll almost certainly lose. (See the conservative Federalist Society for more of an explanation) And if he does, his supporters in the Senate lose their whole strategy of claim it ISN'T constitutional for them to try him.

If Trump DOESN'T challenge the constitutionality, then he's conceding that he CAN be tried.

His only shot is to go to SCOTUS and hope he defies the odds against him. Heaven knows he's gone to court with less.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
12,104
Reaction score
6,191
Points
940
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
Trump will be tried AND convicted in the liberal news media, this trial is just to set that up. That and allow Dems a media opp to spew faux rage over GOP senators who vote no.
There is a possibility it could squeak by. If so, it is worth the time. It is a political trial and does not interfer with actual criminal charges or lawsuits, so it does not limit options to send a message. We are not going to put up with dumb ass presidential demagogues sicking mobs of lawless people on government when they lose an election. It just isn't done, at least til now and we don't wish it to be repeated because it was allowed without consequences. He simply needs to be stripped of any perks or entitlements after leaving office as is deserving none, no staff (except for security) no allowance, no payments, nothing he didn't come to office with and should be banned from further participation except at the ballot box, casting is own ballot, but never holding an office of public trust as he has proven himself not to be trusted. It will be good to put all of the Senate on record to see who supports insurrection spurred by sitting elected officials and who support America, our constitution, our laws, our traditions, our free elections.
^^^ triggered left winger who seeks revenge and shits pants at the thought of facing Trump in another election. ^^^ this is what left wing fear looks like.
You support the insurrection launched against the Capital by trump. How do you justify it?
 

366h34d

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
226
Reaction score
138
Points
53
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
back in 1876 the secretary of war was impeached after leaving office (William Belknap).

A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution.
The final days in office are no exception.
If this is unconstitutional, does the sensate abuse of power? no one, not even the senate, is above the law :cool:
BTW, you better read William Belknap wiki. I highly doubt it will fly in 2021.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Republican senators opposing impeachment trial:


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
Sen Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jodi Ernst (R-Iowa)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)


Republican senators who are open to voting to convict or haven’t ruled it out:


Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)


Republican senators whose stances are unclear:


Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)
It might only take 16 Republicans to convict. Josh Hawlings might be censured and removed from the trial first. That would leave 99 senators voting which only requires 66 votes to convict, not 67.

Wouldn't that be hilarious. And no need to worry about pissing of the Trumpers. They couldnt get any angrier than they already are.

So here's what I say: CENSURE HAWLINGS!
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
back in 1876 the secretary of war was impeached after leaving office (William Belknap).

A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution.
The final days in office are no exception.
If this is unconstitutional, does the sensate abuse of power? no one, not even the senate, is above the law :cool:
BTW, you better read William Belknap wiki. I highly doubt it will fly in 2021.
Doesn't really matter. I doubt this one will be settled by precedent.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,664
Reaction score
1,589
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice. :oops:
That is totally illegal.
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The claim it is no longer necessary since Trump is no longer president, makes no sense because technically once you start impeachment, presidential power always no longer exists until after the trial is over.

Congress already is way too powerful and does too many illegal things.
This not only is illegal, but petty and deliberately divisive.
I am an extreme leftist, progressive, liberal, but this way too much.
Congress does need to be abolished and something new created, to start over.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
That is totally illegal.
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial of the President. Trump isn't President so it doesn't apply.

Where have you been. This was settled already and has been well reported.

But if Trump disagrees, he and always file suit with the Supreme Court. If he won't file suit, then he's obviously conceding the point.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,664
Reaction score
1,589
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
back in 1876 the secretary of war was impeached after leaving office (William Belknap).

A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution.
The final days in office are no exception.
No one said impeachment proceedings were illegal, but that the constitution clearly says it has to be presided over by the Chief Justice, Roberts.
That fact Trump is out of office NOW, does not at all change that since he was president at the time proceedings startted.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,664
Reaction score
1,589
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
That is totally illegal.
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial of the President. Trump isn't President so it doesn't apply.

Where have you been. This was settled already and has been well reported.

But if Trump disagrees, he and always file suit with the Supreme Court. If he won't file suit, then he's obviously conceding the point.
Wrong.
Trump was president when the proceedings started.
This is not at all settled.
The SCOTUS will never agree to a member of congress pretending to act like a judge.
No one would.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,664
Reaction score
1,589
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
Trump will be tried AND convicted in the liberal news media, this trial is just to set that up. That and allow Dems a media opp to spew faux rage over GOP senators who vote no.
There is a possibility it could squeak by. If so, it is worth the time. It is a political trial and does not interfer with actual criminal charges or lawsuits, so it does not limit options to send a message. We are not going to put up with dumb ass presidential demagogues sicking mobs of lawless people on government when they lose an election. It just isn't done, at least til now and we don't wish it to be repeated because it was allowed without consequences. He simply needs to be stripped of any perks or entitlements after leaving office as is deserving none, no staff (except for security) no allowance, no payments, nothing he didn't come to office with and should be banned from further participation except at the ballot box, casting is own ballot, but never holding an office of public trust as he has proven himself not to be trusted. It will be good to put all of the Senate on record to see who supports insurrection spurred by sitting elected officials and who support America, our constitution, our laws, our traditions, our free elections.
^^^ triggered left winger who seeks revenge and shits pants at the thought of facing Trump in another election. ^^^ this is what left wing fear looks like.
You support the insurrection launched against the Capital by trump. How do you justify it?

I hate Trump but calling the occupation an insurrection is a stupid lie that no one is ever going to believe.
It just makes you sound like an agitator, trying to stir something up.

An insurrection is a one way action, with such a violent intent that you can't afford to leave any witnesses allive.
Clearly there no intent to kill anyone, so it was NOT even remotely similar to an insurrection.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,295
Reaction score
21,970
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice. :oops:
/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.
"Lynching"?? :wtf:

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?
And yet Pelosi and the Dem leadership were fine with Dems forcing their way in. The hypocrisy and double standards are off the scale.
...................... Huh?

:cuckoo:
 

lantern2814

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
1,930
Points
940
That is totally illegal.
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial of the President. Trump isn't President so it doesn't apply.

Where have you been. This was settled already and has been well reported.

But if Trump disagrees, he and always file suit with the Supreme Court. If he won't file suit, then he's obviously conceding the point.
And since Trump is no longer President, the Senate can not legally try him. To hold a trial, Roberts HAS to preside. Dems are trying to play the “we impeached him as President but are trying him as a citizen” bullshit. Won’t fly. You don’t get to cherry pick which parts to enforce. Thanks for playing, take your lousy copy of the home game and lose again.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
66,422
Reaction score
17,076
Points
2,220
Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice. :oops:
According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.


The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
back in 1876 the secretary of war was impeached after leaving office (William Belknap).

A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution.
The final days in office are no exception.
No one said impeachment proceedings were illegal, but that the constitution clearly says it has to be presided over by the Chief Justice, Roberts.
That fact Trump is out of office NOW, does not at all change that since he was president at the time proceedings startted.
You’re wrong. Being out of office absolutely changes things. Where have you been.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
That is totally illegal.
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial of the President. Trump isn't President so it doesn't apply.

Where have you been. This was settled already and has been well reported.

But if Trump disagrees, he and always file suit with the Supreme Court. If he won't file suit, then he's obviously conceding the point.
And since Trump is no longer President, the Senate can not legally try him. To hold a trial, Roberts HAS to preside. Dems are trying to play the “we impeached him as President but are trying him as a citizen” bullshit. Won’t fly. You don’t get to cherry pick which parts to enforce. Thanks for playing, take your lousy copy of the home game and lose again.
Just pay attrntention
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
66,422
Reaction score
17,076
Points
2,220
Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ... :cuckoo:
Trump will be tried AND convicted in the liberal news media, this trial is just to set that up. That and allow Dems a media opp to spew faux rage over GOP senators who vote no.
There is a possibility it could squeak by. If so, it is worth the time. It is a political trial and does not interfer with actual criminal charges or lawsuits, so it does not limit options to send a message. We are not going to put up with dumb ass presidential demagogues sicking mobs of lawless people on government when they lose an election. It just isn't done, at least til now and we don't wish it to be repeated because it was allowed without consequences. He simply needs to be stripped of any perks or entitlements after leaving office as is deserving none, no staff (except for security) no allowance, no payments, nothing he didn't come to office with and should be banned from further participation except at the ballot box, casting is own ballot, but never holding an office of public trust as he has proven himself not to be trusted. It will be good to put all of the Senate on record to see who supports insurrection spurred by sitting elected officials and who support America, our constitution, our laws, our traditions, our free elections.
They could always choose a secret vote. He'd be convicted for sure if they add that to the rules.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
66,422
Reaction score
17,076
Points
2,220
Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice. :oops:
That is totally illegal.
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The claim it is no longer necessary since Trump is no longer president, makes no sense because technically once you start impeachment, presidential power always no longer exists until after the trial is over.

Congress already is way too powerful and does too many illegal things.
This not only is illegal, but petty and deliberately divisive.
I am an extreme leftist, progressive, liberal, but this way too much.
Congress does need to be abolished and something new created, to start over.
I agree with everything except the last two sentences, but when you are the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land, who is going to tell you that you have to?
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Trump WAS the president when impeachment started, so then the constitution is very clear that Justice Roberts MUST preside.
The claim it is no longer necessary since Trump is no longer president, makes no sense because technically once you start impeachment, presidential power always no longer exists until after the trial is over.
Reread that and you’ll see it makes no sense and isn’t even true. Where did you get the silly idea that presidential power no longer exists until after the trial is over. It Trump didn’t give up his presidential the first time. You’re just making it up as you go along. You have absolutely no basis for your claim. Point to anyone who says Roberts HAS to preside.

Trump is not President. If ROBERTS HAD to preside, he would. Quit making stuff up!
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top