meaner gene
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2017
- 21,612
- 17,360
- 2,290
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.
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.
