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

[Bob Blaylock]

Before you claim to be Perry Mason, the legal definition of ex-post-facto, is for criminal laws, not civil laws. And impeachment is a civil action, not a criminal one.

Bullshit.

The Constitution does not just prohibit ex-post-facto criminal laws. It prohibits ex-post-facto laws, period. That means •ANY• law that takes effect retroactively.

There is not any language in the Constitution that states or even implies that this prohibition applies only to criminal laws.

Tell the supreme court, because they upheld retroactive tax laws, and retroactive civil laws. They didn't draw a line of how retroactive, but they allowed laws applicable going back 3 years, but they overturned going back retroactively 35 years.

The Supreme Court has, throughout it's history, been wrong on many occasions, has upheld laws and actions of government that the Justices certainly had no excuse for not knowing were blatantly unconstitutional.

This does not, in the least, support any claim that these actions were legitimate; it only illustrates how the Supreme Court, like any other part of government, is subject to corruption and abuse.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Since a trial requires a defendant be able to defend themselves, once Trump is out of office and is no longer a federal employee he can't defend himself in the senate court anymore.

The process, as it has already passed the House, is illegitimate for that very reason, among others—that he was never given any opportunity to defend himself against the charges that were made against him.

 

[Care4all]

Yes

Oh look...we have a brand new terrorist on the board

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?

I'm a little late at reading this thread and now it is over 100 posts, that I have not read through all of them, so if this has been mentioned already, I'm sorry!!!

We had a Secretary of War that was impeached after he no longer held office..... he resigned in tears before the impeachment in the House took place....

They impeached him anyway! After he no longer held the office.....and the Senate tried him about 3 weeks later....

The Senate deliberated first, on whether they could impeach and try an office holder after they no longer held office...and they determined they could!

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

May 1876

​

An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.
At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand lifestyle on his $8,000 government salary.
By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.
The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. 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. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.
On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

Irrelevant. This was a secretary of war. Not the President of United States. Apples to car tires comparison.

I don't know why you would think that? The impeachment clause includes all three, the President, the vice President and office holders in the same sentence as equals in impeachment.

Everything okay down there, Care? At about 5 o'clock my house actually SHOOK for a few long seconds. Never lost power though. Windstorm 3 in a month. I like the warm weather but...

We got everything ready for losing the electric, gas in the generator, all kinds of extension cords readied etc.... we were certain we were going to lose it..... all the deck furniture that we leave out there as cover for our kitty cat from the owls and hawks when she goes out on the deck was blown off and in to the yard...

but only the good Lord knows why, we did not lose it!!!

 

[Kondor3]

...74m Trump voters will remember who voted for what...

When they come to understand that they backed a selfish pussy who chickened-out from going down Pennsylvania Avenue with them, and left them in the lurch without pardons, the 74 millions will have probably dwindled to 24 millions or fewer by the mid-terms. Americans don't like cowardly losers, nor traitors.

 

[Kondor3]

Since a trial requires a defendant be able to defend themselves, once Trump is out of office and is no longer a federal employee he can't defend himself in the senate court anymore.

The process, as it has already passed the House, is illegitimate for that very reason, among others—that he was never given any opportunity to defend himself against the charges that were made against him.

He gets to defend himself at his trial.

 

[Care4all]

The Senate cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Trump cannot be impeached once he leaves office.

WTF is that supposed to mean "create jurisdiction"...

It means the senate cannot try a private citizen. They have no jurisdiction to do so. Thus they would have to "create" it in order to try a private citizen.

the Senate did it already...precedent was set. The ex secretary of war, showed up for his trial in the senate as a private citizen, 3 weeks after he no longer held the position and was impeached.

 

[libertygirl2u]

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.

Btw, he was acquitted by one vote, after all of that.

The Senate cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Trump cannot be impeached once he leaves office.

Okey dokey. They are aimin' to try, though. Are you going to file the motion to stop them?

Yes

Oh look...we have a brand new terrorist on the board

Sorry, I am just trying to get use to this site and I really screwed up when I answered this one.... NO! NO! NO! I the whole thing was corrupt and the dems broke laws coming and going!

 

[MadDog]

this impeachment is constitutional.

As I said in the other thread, impeachment is a political process, not an administration of justice.

The only thing that matters in an impeachment process is votes. No crime is required, and no evidence necessary. Only votes.

Justice Roberts and the entire Supreme Court would be wrong to deem the process unconstitutional right now.

There may be an argument that the impeachment process is moot because it is only intended to remove a sitting president. Thus, any action taken after the president has left office is unconstitutional, but there in no clear language forbidding a post-term conviction.

What does the Constitution say about the Senate's role?
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. (Article 1, Section 3)

notice it says the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachment’s. It doesn’t imply an expiration date. While the Constitution provides for removal from office as a consequence of conviction, I don’t know of anything in the Constitution that prohibits other consequences. Anything that isn’t prohibited by the constitution is PERMITTED by the Constitution.

 

[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?

I'm a little late at reading this thread and now it is over 100 posts, of which I have not read through all of them, so if this has been mentioned already, I'm sorry!!!

We had a Secretary of War that was impeached after he no longer held office..... he resigned in tears before the impeachment in the House took place....

They impeached him anyway! After he no longer held the office.....and the Senate tried him about 3 weeks later....

The Senate deliberated first, on whether they could impeach and try an office holder after they no longer held office...and they determined they could!

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

May 1876

​

An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.
At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand lifestyle on his $8,000 government salary.
By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.
The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. 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. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.
On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

OK, but did the 1876 USSC say that they agreed with the Senate's view that they could impeach Belknap?
Then again, the current USSC may have a different interpretation than the 1876 USSC?
Agree Belknap is precedent for impeaching someone who left, but we don't know if that is still constitutional.
The impeachment trial in 1876 probably did NOT have a Chief Justice presiding to rule on constitutionality.
See post just above...

 

[kyzr]

The Senate cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Trump cannot be impeached once he leaves office.

WTF is that supposed to mean "create jurisdiction"...

It means the senate cannot try a private citizen. They have no jurisdiction to do so. Thus they would have to "create" it in order to try a private citizen.

the Senate did it already...precedent was set. The ex secretary of war, showed up for his trial in the senate as a private citizen, 3 weeks after he no longer held the position and was impeached.

Yeah, but was the Chief Justice presiding in 1876?
Was a ruling made on constitutionality?
Now that Trump is no longer president can Chuck Shumer take the gavel and have a real Kangaroo Court?

 

[Lesh]

we don't know if that is still constitutional.

Has the Constitution changed ?

 

[colfax_m]

judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

It’s that second part that matters. If impeachment can prevent future office holding, then it means that former office holders can be impeached. You can’t conveniently redid to avoid a consequence of future office holding.

 

[kyzr]

we don't know if that is still constitutional.

Has the Constitution changed ?

Interpretation of the Constitution is always changing depending upon the makeup of the court.

 

[kyzr]

judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

It’s that second part that matters. If impeachment can prevent future office holding, then it means that former office holders can be impeached. You can’t conveniently redid to avoid a consequence of future office holding.

OK, since Trump would not be president for the "trial":
1. Would the Chief Justice preside or would it be a Kangaroo Court with Shumer or Kamala having the gavel?
2. Who would rule on the constitutionality of the impeachment articles since no hearing was held?
3. Just imagine Kamala disqualifying her potential 2024 presidential opponent?! Hilarious!

 

[Lesh]

we don't know if that is still constitutional.

Has the Constitution changed ?

Interpretation of the Constitution is always changing depending upon the makeup of the court.

So precedent no longer means anything?

That's called stare decisis.

Roberts was specifically asked about it during his confirmation and he affirmed strongly

 

[colfax_m]

judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

It’s that second part that matters. If impeachment can prevent future office holding, then it means that former office holders can be impeached. You can’t conveniently redid to avoid a consequence of future office holding.

OK, since Trump would not be president for the "trial":
1. Would the Chief Justice preside or would it be a Kangaroo Court with Shumer or Kamala having the gavel?
2. Who would rule on the constitutionality of the impeachment articles since no hearing was held?
3. Just imagine Kamala disqualifying her potential 2024 presidential opponent?! Hilarious!

Chief Justice would preside. The Senate would rule on the constitutionality. I don’t think Harris has any role in voting on impeachment but I could be wrong.

Since you dodged my point, are you tacitly admitting it makes sense that you can impeach after leaving office?

 

[kyzr]

we don't know if that is still constitutional.

Has the Constitution changed ?

Interpretation of the Constitution is always changing depending upon the makeup of the court.

So precedent no longer means anything?

That's called stare decisis.

Roberts was specifically asked about it during his confirmation and he affirmed strongly

The question they always ask about is abortion and overturning Roe, not about impeaching a guy who's not even president.

 

[kyzr]

judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

It’s that second part that matters. If impeachment can prevent future office holding, then it means that former office holders can be impeached. You can’t conveniently redid to avoid a consequence of future office holding.

OK, since Trump would not be president for the "trial":
1. Would the Chief Justice preside or would it be a Kangaroo Court with Shumer or Kamala having the gavel?
2. Who would rule on the constitutionality of the impeachment articles since no hearing was held?
3. Just imagine Kamala disqualifying her potential 2024 presidential opponent?! Hilarious!

Chief Justice would preside. The Senate would rule on the constitutionality. I don’t think Harris has any role in voting on impeachment but I could be wrong.

Since you dodged my point, are you tacitly admitting it makes sense that you can impeach after leaving office?

1. How do you know Roberts would preside?
The Constitution says he presides for impeaching "the president", which Trump would not be, so Roberts could decline.

2. Why would the senate rule on constitutionality and not the USSC? The senate is 50-50 so Harris would have the gavel.

3. Your point is that Belknap was impeached after leaving office, so by senate precedent Trump could be as well. However, I don't know the details of the Belknap trial. Was the Chief Justice presiding in 1876? Did the USSC rule on the constitutionality? Since Trump was a president and Belknap a Secretary, does that affect constitutionality?

4. If Nancy forwards the Articles, it should be a riot, politically speaking.

 

[colfax_m]

judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

It’s that second part that matters. If impeachment can prevent future office holding, then it means that former office holders can be impeached. You can’t conveniently redid to avoid a consequence of future office holding.

OK, since Trump would not be president for the "trial":
1. Would the Chief Justice preside or would it be a Kangaroo Court with Shumer or Kamala having the gavel?
2. Who would rule on the constitutionality of the impeachment articles since no hearing was held?
3. Just imagine Kamala disqualifying her potential 2024 presidential opponent?! Hilarious!

Chief Justice would preside. The Senate would rule on the constitutionality. I don’t think Harris has any role in voting on impeachment but I could be wrong.

Since you dodged my point, are you tacitly admitting it makes sense that you can impeach after leaving office?

1. How do you know Roberts would preside?
The Constitution says he presides for impeaching "the president", which Trump would not be, so Roberts could decline.

2. Why would the senate rule on constitutionality and not the USSC? The senate is 50-50 so Harris would have the gavel.

3. Your point is that Belknap was impeached after leaving office, so by senate precedent Trump could be as well. However, I don't know the details of the Belknap trial. Was the Chief Justice presiding in 1876? Did the USSC rule on the constitutionality? Since Trump was a president and Belknap a Secretary, does that affect constitutionality?

4. If Nancy forwards the Articles, it should be a riot, politically speaking.

1. Because Trump was president and is being impeached for actions as president.

2. Congress has plenary power for impeachment. The judiciary does not play a role because the constitution give them that power.

3. Use your head. What good would it do to be able to prevent someone from holding future office if they could simply resign before the impeachment takes place to avoid consequences? It makes no sense. Therefore it is inherently necessary to be able to impeach despite having left office.

 

[kyzr]

judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office."

It’s that second part that matters. If impeachment can prevent future office holding, then it means that former office holders can be impeached. You can’t conveniently redid to avoid a consequence of future office holding.

OK, since Trump would not be president for the "trial":
1. Would the Chief Justice preside or would it be a Kangaroo Court with Shumer or Kamala having the gavel?
2. Who would rule on the constitutionality of the impeachment articles since no hearing was held?
3. Just imagine Kamala disqualifying her potential 2024 presidential opponent?! Hilarious!

Chief Justice would preside. The Senate would rule on the constitutionality. I don’t think Harris has any role in voting on impeachment but I could be wrong.

Since you dodged my point, are you tacitly admitting it makes sense that you can impeach after leaving office?

1. How do you know Roberts would preside?
The Constitution says he presides for impeaching "the president", which Trump would not be, so Roberts could decline.

2. Why would the senate rule on constitutionality and not the USSC? The senate is 50-50 so Harris would have the gavel.

3. Your point is that Belknap was impeached after leaving office, so by senate precedent Trump could be as well. However, I don't know the details of the Belknap trial. Was the Chief Justice presiding in 1876? Did the USSC rule on the constitutionality? Since Trump was a president and Belknap a Secretary, does that affect constitutionality?

4. If Nancy forwards the Articles, it should be a riot, politically speaking.

1. Because Trump was president and is being impeached for actions as president.

2. Congress has plenary power for impeachment. The judiciary does not play a role because the constitution give them that power.

3. Use your head. What good would it do to be able to prevent someone from holding future office if they could simply resign before the impeachment takes place to avoid consequences? It makes no sense. Therefore it is inherently necessary to be able to impeach despite having left office.

1. OK, I hope Roberts agrees to preside, although that is not a given since during the trial Trump would not be the president, and I'm not sure that for the Belknap precedent that the Chief Justice presided.

2. The House has the "sole power" to impeach, the senate has the "sole power" for trial, but only the USSC has final say on Constitutionality.

3. I see your "opinion" but no legal justification. My link in the OP to Cornell Law states in spite of Belknap:
"...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."

4. Found this ABA article that sets the debate up nicely:

As House impeaches Trump for second time, some say Senate trial after his presidency is unconstitutional

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday impeached President Donald Trump for a second time, saying his behavior before the U.S. Capitol riots last week amounts to “incitement of insurrection.”

www.abajournal.com

As House impeaches Trump for second time, some say Senate trial after his presidency is unconstitutional

Many experts fall into two camps:

• The impeachment power only applies to current office holders. In this camp is Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School and author of Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide, NBC News reports. Others holding this view are Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia.

• The impeachment and trial can begin after the president leaves. Brian Kalt, a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law who wrote a law review article on the subject, is among that group, according to NBC News. So is Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who is the author of The Federal Impeachment Process.