Is The Pending Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump UnConstitutional? (Poll)

[meaner gene]

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

Actually you just pointed out the process is penal. It invokes a penalty more expansive than a states felony bar on holding public office.

And since there are two penalties, a persons actions (such as resigning) can't be used to stop the process. Imagine someone about to be convicted resigns, and claims that he is no longer an office holder and they have to stop any procedures against him. Saving him from conviction, and saving him from a ban from public office.

That resigning gives you a "get out of jail free" card is ridiculous.

 

[meaner gene]

He is an office holder, for just a few more days. But he will cease to be, long before this process could be completed.

It says impeachment is for people currently in office. There is no such requirement attached to a senate trial. It means that someone can't get off by running out the clock.

 

[OldLady]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

Some guy in the 1800's was impeached after he left office, so they say yes, he can be. I hear Trump is having a hard time finding lawyers to represent him, but they will no doubt fire off one more suit to the Supreme Court about this once he does.

 

[meaner gene]

Some guy in the 1800's was impeached after he left office, so they say yes, he can be. I hear Trump is having a hard time finding lawyers to represent him, but they will no doubt fire off one more suit to the Supreme Court about this once he does.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant

. Marsh’s promise of generous kickbacks prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.


On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.

 

[Slade3200]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There will be no Senate Hearing. There is no law to support convicting a president of a high crime when he's not even president anymore! The whole point of the conviction is to convict to remove him from office. If the Dems try to go forward with this and Roberts goes along, our SCOTUS is now as worthless and political as our other branches and I'll know Robert's tirade in refusing to hear Trump's case was purely political-- -- first Roberts created the dilemma of a riot at the Capitol over the unresolved election he refused to address then preside over an illegal impeachment with no charges, no witnesses, and no hearings that only happened because of his cowardess?

The whole point is not just to remove him from office. Impeachment also strips him of certain presidential privileges and prevents him from running for office again.

Agreed. But the Constitution doesn't say "remove and/or disqualify from future office". It says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

So you and Pogo are in the camp of removal doesn't matter, you want him banned. OK, now if only Justice Roberts sees it that way you and the democrats are all set for trial.

It looks to me like the snippet you pasted says exactly what you’re saying it doesn’t say. Removal from office AND disqualification from holding any public office. What am I missing here?

If you are NOT IN OFFICE how can you be REMOVED? Trump will not be in office for the trial.
Can any ex-president be impeached for any perceived "abuse of power" just to prohibit him from public office?

Sure I guess, if the congress wants to hold them accountable for a wrong.

True Trump would already be out of office so he wouldn’t need to be removed but he would be impeached and found guilty this held to account by the powers of the congress

 

[meaner gene]

Sure I guess, if the congress wants to hold them accountable for a wrong.

True Trump would already be out of office so he wouldn’t need to be removed but he would be impeached and found guilty this held to account by the powers of the congress

Actually it's within the powers of congress to enact acts of congress retroactively. Exampled by civil laws and tax laws that applied retroactively years before they were passed.

I believe it is within congresses power to convict Trump retroactively to the date of his impeachment. This would be handled like the USSC cases like Texas v White, that invalidated the acts of the seceded states except those done for routine governance.

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

 

[otto105]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

He has already been Impeached...for a second time.

 

[kyzr]

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

Actually you just pointed out the process is penal. It invokes a penalty more expansive than a states felony bar on holding public office.

And since there are two penalties, a persons actions (such as resigning) can't be used to stop the process. Imagine someone about to be convicted resigns, and claims that he is no longer an office holder and they have to stop any procedures against him. Saving him from conviction, and saving him from a ban from public office.

That resigning gives you a "get out of jail free" card is ridiculous.

What part of there is no "jail" in the Constitutional impeachment of a president don't you get?
There are only two penalties:
1. Removal from office
2. Disqualification from future office
3. A resignation, means you don't need to be impeached to get removed

 

[Lesh]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

Is reading an issue for you?

Go back and try again

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

He has already been Impeached...for a second time.

Yes Trump is impeached a 2nd time, but he is not "convicted" by the senate as of yet. The Constitution says:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

 

[kyzr]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

Is reading an issue for you?

Go back and try again

You assert that an impeachment can happen after a president has left office by precedent.
My point was that Belknap wasn't a president.
McConnell wants to see the evidence, and is all too happy to throw Trump under the bus.
It remains to be seen if Chief Justice Roberts agrees with you that impeachment is not "limited to office holders" as referenced in the OP.

 

[meaner gene]

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

He was sec of the army. He was impeached for corruption, but tried to stop the process by resigning right before the vote to impeach him.

Congress voted to impeach him anyway, and the senate agreed to try him, concluding they were not limited to trying only current office holders.

 

[Lesh]

Although I would love for the democrats to waste a month or two on an impeachment trial that will never get 67 votes, I need to point out the simple fact that the US Constitution limits impeachment to "office holders", which Trump is not.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

"...the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

So the impeachment trial, or not, is a win-win for Trump and the GOP, because the democrats will lose votes during the "illegal" trial.
It shows how stupid democrats are, the party that thinks the island of Guam will capsize, and are happy wasting the senate's time.

So what cards are left to play by both parties and Chief Justice Roberts?

There is precedent for Impeachment and trial held after having left office. Secretary of War Belknap. Look it up

I don't remember a President Belknap?!

Is reading an issue for you?

Go back and try again

You assert that an impeachment can happen after a president has left office by precedent.
My point was that Belknap wasn't a president.
McConnell wants to see the evidence, and is all too happy to throw Trump under the bus.
It remains to be seen if Chief Justice Roberts agrees with you that impeachment is not "limited to office holders" as referenced in the OP.

Belknap IS precedent. The Constitution makes no such distinction between the Impeachment of a Sec of War and the Presidency.

If you're looking for SCOTUS to save Trump you're gonna need a telescope because I doubt even the Justices he installed have any love for him. And it would take a LOT of love to save his sorry ass at this point

 

[meaner gene]

What part of there is no "jail" in the Constitutional impeachment of a president don't you get?
There are only two penalties:
1. Removal from office
2. Disqualification from future office
3. A resignation, means you don't need to be impeached to get removed

But a resignation under your view would prevent disqualification from future office.
Surely you can't sustain that resignation should bar all possible penalties.

 

[Lesh]

Belknap WAS an office holder (past tense) as in some who held office.

Trump is an office older

 

[meaner gene]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....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;..."

Notice there is no "resignation" exception to the senate trial.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually it's within the powers of congress to enact acts of congress retroactively. Exampled by civil laws and tax laws that applied retroactively years before they were passed.

No, it absolutely is most certainly not. The Constitution explicitly forbids ex-post-facto laws, which is exactly what you are falsely saying Congress is allowed to do.

See Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 and Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

It is absolutely unconstitutional for any law to take effect retroactively.

 

[meaner gene]

You assert that an impeachment can happen after a president has left office by precedent.
My point was that Belknap wasn't a president.

The impeachment clause, Article 2 section 3 applies to the President, the VP, and all officers of the US. The same law applies to Belknap as to Trump.

 

[meaner gene]

Belknap IS precedent. The Constitution makes no such distinction between the Impeachment of a Sec of War and the Presidency.

If you're looking for SCOTUS to save Trump you're gonna need a telescope because I doubt even the Justices he installed have any love for him. And it would take a LOT of love to save his sorry ass at this point

The USSC spoke in Nixon v US (that's judge nixon, not the tricky one) where they said that the senate makes the impeachment trial rules, and except their rules being a violation of the constitution, they have no authority over the legislative branch.

If the senate says they can try an officer, who resigned after being impeached, there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting it