- Jul 16, 2011
- 21,086
- 10,782
- 1,245
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you have Dershowitz's arguments?Is the senate trial of a former president constitutional?
Dershowitz says NO !
Starting at time 10:05...
It is pretty simple...
Nobody is above the law... SC has said this a few times...
So trial by Senate or trial in criminal court?
Which one?
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.
Good call on "MOSCOW" Mitch, like if that ain't the truth what is????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.
Good point.He doesn't, CNN, Huffpo, MSNBC, Slate, etc has assured him
Here's an idea. How about the Democrats stop acting like a bunch of power mad idiots and start focusing on REAL PROBLEMS.Republicans are relying on an argument of the trial not being constitutional as a reason to acquit. Without that argument, they have to base it on the evidence. Which is damning.
Toro is an uneducated and illiterate parrot of the dummies who make up the Goebbels media
It mentions ”other federal civil officers”, stupid.The constitution doesn't mention judges being impeached, but they're included.Here I will you out.....
Where the law says "When the President of the United States is tried, " notice that they don't say Ex-president.
Simple---impeachment does not apply to ex-presidents. DUH
They tried to convict in the senate before, and the senate voted they didnt have the authority to try a private citizen.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.
The argument that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to license lame-donald-duck office holders to incite insurrections against the United States with impunity serves as a diversion for those who are loathe to confront the charges.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...
acquittal means the charges should never have been brought....he,ll be twice acquitted.