Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?

[BS Filter]

I caught part of Chuck Schumers argument, and it proves the senate trial isn't barred by the impeached person no longer being in office.

From the Constitution:


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.

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.

Under Trumps lawyers interpretation, that when the impeached becomes a private citizen the trial becomes unconstitutional. So let's test if this is a legitimate position.

There are two judgments the senate can make. Removal from office, and disqualification from future office. If the first judgement is removal from office, Trumps lawyers position would bar them from imposing a second judgment. Since once the first judgement was rendered, the impeached, having been removed, would at that point be a private citizen, and by Trumps lawyers position, the senate could not continue the trial, or impose an additional judgment.

As the constitution declares the senate can make both judgments, if Trumps lawyers position would prevent that, that means their position must be invalid.

It's clear the constitution requires if the senate renders judgment to remove a sitting president, their second judgment would be on a private citizen. Hence passing judgment on a private citizen must be constitutional.

So what? President Trump will be exonerated during the trial, the only President ever to be Twice Exonerated.

Will make a tremendous kickoff for the 2024 Campaign.

Not being found guilty does NOT mean that he has been exonerated.

Any intelligent person knows that if he is not found guilty, all it means is that the Senate Republicans are a bunch of spineless A-holes who will have failed to uphold their oath of office and should be removed from the Senate.

THAT will be a great kick-off for the 2022 Senate elections!

So you assume he's guilty before a trial. That's un-American. Shame on you.

I've seen the evidence, so I'd have to be an idiot to think that he's not guilty.

There's nothing un-American about it.

Perhaps those that have already judged him not guilty - despite all reason - are the ones that put their mindless loyalty to Trump above their loyalty to America are the ones that are un-American.

Is Madonna guilty of incitement for saying she'd like to blow up the White House?

Is Kathy Griffin guilty for advocating Trump's decapitation?

Yep. Was Peter Fonda guilty for saying Barron Trump should be ripped from his mother's arms and put in a cage with pedophiles?

 

[meaner gene]

Is Madonna guilty of incitement for saying she'd like to blow up the White House?

If some crazy listen to Madonna, and tried to blow up the white house, then YES she would be guilty of incitement.

See how that works.

 

[BS Filter]

Is Madonna guilty of incitement for saying she'd like to blow up the White House?

If some crazy listen to Madonna, and tried to blow up the white house, then YES she would be guilty of incitement.

See how that works.

Wrong. She said SHE would like to blow up the White House. See how that works. What about what Peter Fonda said?

 

[meaner gene]

Or it can be said that it's not unconstitutional, as such a determination can never be made being outside the purview of the courts.

Without the courts, it is up to the senate to decide the constitutionality of such a trial. And historically they already decided twice that it was constitutional to try someone after they left office.

 

[meaner gene]

Yep. Was Peter Fonda guilty for saying Barron Trump should be ripped from his mother's arms and put in a cage with pedophiles?

The proof of incitement is clear. If somebody put Barron Trump in a cage, like Peter Fonda told them to do, he would be guilty of inciting them to do it.

 

[schmidlap]

“None of this would have happened without the President.
The President could have immediately and forcefully
intervened to stop the violence. He did not.
There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States
of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”
​

Is that what Rachel, and Don told you?

I don't know who your "Rachel" and "Don" are, but the cogent words are those of senior Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney.

I support most Americans in the matter.

Poll: Majority favor conviction as Trump impeachment trial begins

Poll: Majority favor conviction as Trump impeachment trial begins

 

[BS Filter]

Or it can be said that it's not unconstitutional, as such a determination can never be made being outside the purview of the courts.

Without the courts, it is up to the senate to decide the constitutionality of such a trial. And historically they already decided twice that it was constitutional to try someone after they left office.

The Constitution is explicit. The Chief Justice shall preside over the trial of a President.

 

[BS Filter]

Yep. Was Peter Fonda guilty for saying Barron Trump should be ripped from his mother's arms and put in a cage with pedophiles?

The proof of incitement is clear. If somebody put Barron Trump in a cage, like Peter Fonda told them to do, he would be guilty of inciting them to do it.

Trump never said anything about violence.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong. She said SHE would like to blow up the White House. See how that works. What about what Peter Fonda said?

Incitement is simple. If you say something that causes somebody to do something, you've incited them. What you say, or how you say it means little, if the people that you incited believe you told them to do it.

 

[BS Filter]

Wrong. She said SHE would like to blow up the White House. See how that works. What about what Peter Fonda said?

Incitement is simple. If you say something that causes somebody to do something, you've incited them. What you say, or how you say it means little, if the people that you incited believe you told them to do it.

Trump never said anything about violence.

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course it is, and the biggest names in conservative law have confirmed it.

He was impeached while in office. The trial could have been held while he was in office but Moscow Mitch wouldn’t allow it. Now he’s out and they’re whining that he should have been tried while still in office.

I liked the argument that if they convicted Trump while he was president and removed him from office, he would be a private citizen when they continued the trial to determine if he should be barred from future office.

The argument you can't try a private citizen therefore fails.

Also, all through Impeachment #1 they cried that “who are we to decide - let the voters decide in November “. Then the voters decided and they still claim they can’t impeach him.

 

[peach174]

You think that 67 Senators will vote to impeach?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is an ex President being tried and no Chief Justice. Bogus as a three dollar bill

All that might emerge from the trial is public awareness of what caused the deadly insurrection against our government of the People. That's clearly not in the interests of some folks.

Deadly "insurrection"?

In your hallucinatory state perhaps. Pray you never see an actual insurrection.

Both sides are well aware of what caused it. It wasn't Trump.

 

[Lesh]

Is Madonna guilty of incitement for saying she'd like to blow up the White House?

Neither Madonna nior Kathy Griffen are PRESIDENT trying to hold on to that office by any means necessary

 

[Lesh]

The Constitution is explicit. The Chief Justice shall preside over the trial of a President.

And Trump is a FORMER President so the CGUSSC is not required.

 

[BS Filter]

No lefties here can show us the words from President Trump that sparked the so called insurrection, yet they keep trying to establish it happened because of President Trump's words.

 

[Chuz Life]

In order to impeach you need to still be president.

Trump was president on January 13th, when the house impeached him.

And Trump was president on January 15th, when the house delivered the articles of impeachment to the senate.

Next.....

Impeachment is a tool to remove somone from public office AND to prohibit them from seeking office again.

Trump is already gone.

There is no Constitutional provision for trying the prohibition part, ex post facto. . . And without the Chief Justice presiding.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it is, and the biggest names in conservative law have confirmed it.

He was impeached while in office. The trial could have been held while he was in office but Moscow Mitch wouldn’t allow it. Now he’s out and they’re whining that he should have been tried while still in office.

I liked the argument that if they convicted Trump while he was president and removed him from office, he would be a private citizen when they continued the trial to determine if he should be barred from future office.

The argument you can't try a private citizen therefore fails.

That's a moronic argument - appropriate for you, however.

 

[BS Filter]

Lefties are stupid. There's no other word for it.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump was impeached while he was still president. McConnell refused to start the trial before Trump left office. Of course trying Trump now is Constitutional.

How does that make it constitutional?