Professor Dershowitz: Six ways the Democrat House violated the Constitution

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,764
Reaction score
16,589
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
In fact, impeachment is a political – not legal – process, the sole purview of Congress, not the courts.

Consequently, the House’s action is not subject to judicial review as there isn’t even the ‘potential’ that the Constitution might be ‘violated.’
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,764
Reaction score
16,589
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
Dershowitz failed to cite the Supreme Court ruling which held that the House’s actions were ‘un-Constitutional.’

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, US. v. Morrison (2000)).

Absent such a ruling, this is nothing but subjective opinion and speculation, completely devoid of merit or authority.
It's funny watching these Trump Humpers take anything Dershowitz says and run with it like it is the law of the land. Dershowitz and Giuliani are two of the oldest fools running today.
True.

It’s also telling that conservatives become ‘defenders’ of the Constitution when government does something they don’t like yet have no problem violating the Constitution to advance their failed, wrongheaded agenda.
 

B. Kidd

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
9,818
Points
900
Location
Western Lands
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
In fact, impeachment is a political – not legal – process, the sole purview of Congress, not the courts.

Consequently, the House’s action is not subject to judicial review as there isn’t even the ‘potential’ that the Constitution might be ‘violated.’
If you say it to yourself enough times, even you might believe it!
Sucker.....!
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,477
Reaction score
21,748
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
All-right! Now according to Dershowitz you can say anything you want even if it causes people to riot...There is now no limitations on speech and all terroristic threatening charges must be dismissed that are on file and being being processed in the USA.
The problem is that what Trump said never incited a riot. That was yet another leftist lie. The attack took place while Trump was giving a speech miles away. It was a planned insurrection that even the FBI admits to. In fact they warned the Capital police about it days earlier. So how can you impeach a President for something he never did?
You may believe that but many in Congress on both sides do not an that is where it counts.
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
70,844
Reaction score
12,789
Points
2,180
When has Dershowitz ever been right about anything?
 

Yarddog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
11,466
Reaction score
4,001
Points
350
All-right! Now according to Dershowitz you can say anything you want even if it causes people to riot...There is now no limitations on speech and all terroristic threatening charges must be dismissed that are on file and being being processed in the USA.

There is evidence that the break in was pre- planned. Now if that is the case, how is it that Trumps speech caused a riot? I listened again to that speech and he was talking about being peaceful and standing outside the Capitol Building to cheer on Senators to cast the right vote.

Now if Trump simply protesting the election results is considered sparking a riot then a lot of Democrats should be held liable for deaths and injuries across the country when they supported "peaceful protests" including the one that marched on the White House and putting criminals back on the street during it all, without bail.
 

tyroneweaver

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
20,898
Reaction score
5,318
Points
280
Location
Burley, Idaho

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
7,176
Points
265
..if they impeached/etc every politician that gave a ''fiery''' speech, they would have to get rid of over half of them--DUH
I’m trying to think of the last politician that gave a speech that lead directly to a riot.

Any ideas?
You're paralyzed in a State Media narrative that is sooo, yesterday.
Translation: I know he’s a good friend with the most famous pedophile and sexual abuser but I choose to ignore that because it isn’t convenient.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
7,176
Points
265
All-right! Now according to Dershowitz you can say anything you want even if it causes people to riot...There is now no limitations on speech and all terroristic threatening charges must be dismissed that are on file and being being processed in the USA.

There is evidence that the break in was pre- planned. Now if that is the case, how is it that Trumps speech caused a riot? I listened again to that speech and he was talking about being peaceful and standing outside the Capitol Building to cheer on Senators to cast the right vote.

Now if Trump simply protesting the election results is considered sparking a riot then a lot of Democrats should be held liable for deaths and injuries across the country when they supported "peaceful protests" including the one that marched on the White House and putting criminals back on the street during it all, without bail.
It wasn’t simply protesting election results when they stormed the Capitol. It was violent.
 

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
30,040
Reaction score
5,659
Points
1,130
Location
From the Back of Beyond
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
First point is BS, so negates the second. You can't yell 'fire' in a theatre. He just didn't yell 'fire', he blocked the exits. As for the sixth point, that is a matter of opinion. As for the rest, wouldn't have a clue.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
63,798
Reaction score
14,291
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
Dershowitz failed to cite the Supreme Court ruling which held that the House’s actions were ‘un-Constitutional.’

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, US. v. Morrison (2000)).

Absent such a ruling, this is nothing but subjective opinion and speculation, completely devoid of merit or authority.
It's funny watching these Trump Humpers take anything Dershowitz says and run with it like it is the law of the land. Dershowitz and Giuliani are two of the oldest fools running today.
True.

It’s also telling that conservatives become ‘defenders’ of the Constitution when government does something they don’t like yet have no problem violating the Constitution to advance their failed, wrongheaded agenda.
Don't you have any other mode of operation than "projection"?
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
1,318
Points
1,908
“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”

“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”


“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.

If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”


“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”


“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.

Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.

This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”


“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.

In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.

To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”


“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.

It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.

To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”




You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?

The congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
Dershowitz failed to cite the Supreme Court ruling which held that the House’s actions were ‘un-Constitutional.’

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, US. v. Morrison (2000)).

Absent such a ruling, this is nothing but subjective opinion and speculation, completely devoid of merit or authority.
I thought dershovitz is the world's smartest Democrat. Did things change?
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,915
Reaction score
17,097
Points
2,290
If Nancy Pelosi gave a speech that immediately turned into a riot, you’d be freaking out.
The speech did not turn into a riot. The riot started during Trump's speech miles away. Nobody at the speech was at the riot at the same time. If it was Trump's speech that got people to riot, how did the FBI know about it a few days earlier?
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,915
Reaction score
17,097
Points
2,290
First point is BS, so negates the second. You can't yell 'fire' in a theatre. He just didn't yell 'fire', he blocked the exits. As for the sixth point, that is a matter of opinion. As for the rest, wouldn't have a clue.
With the yelling fire in the movie theater again. First of all, freedom of speech doesn't apply to cinemas. Our right to free speech is so government cannot stop it. Yelling fire is breaking a law by causing a panic so it's not covered by our US Constitution.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,915
Reaction score
17,097
Points
2,290
When has Dershowitz ever been right about anything?
How about when he defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment? Bet you had no problem with that.

What you don't like about him is he doesn't march in lockstep like every other Democrat. When something he feels is right, he'll say it. When something is wrong in his opinion, he'll say it.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,915
Reaction score
17,097
Points
2,290
You may believe that but many in Congress on both sides do not an that is where it counts.
What's not to believe? Did the FBI warn Capital police days earlier or didn't they? Because if they did, then it's clear evidence it was a planned attack long before Trump's speech.
 
OP
Ray From Cleveland

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,915
Reaction score
17,097
Points
2,290
In fact, impeachment is a political – not legal – process, the sole purview of Congress, not the courts.

Consequently, the House’s action is not subject to judicial review as there isn’t even the ‘potential’ that the Constitution might be ‘violated.’
So freedom of speech doesn't exist in the Constitution in your leftist world?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top