Professor Dershowitz: Six ways the Democrat House violated the Constitution

[BWK]

“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.”

Constitutional expert Dershowitz says House violated the Constitution six times in impeachment sham

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who helped defend President Donald Trump from the first impeachment sham, says there is no legal basis for 2nd impeachment, cites six areas where Constitution was violated

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

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.

Inciting an insurrection is not a First Amendment right, and Trump is receiving due process. Next?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Absent such a ruling, this is nothing but subjective opinion and speculation, completely devoid of merit or authority.

What do you call this impeachment? It's opinion and not fact. Facts prove otherwise.

 

[BWK]

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?

No for inciting insurrection.

 

[BWK]

Absent such a ruling, this is nothing but subjective opinion and speculation, completely devoid of merit or authority.

What do you call this impeachment? It's opinion and not fact. Facts prove otherwise.

It's a fact that Trump incited an insurrection on video. His own base can testify to that.

 

[BWK]

Dear Alan,
Inciting a riot is not protected speech.
Thank you.

Dear C-fax,
You don't know spit!

Regards,
Alan D.

And you're so fucking ignorant, your arguments are no where to be found.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's a fact that Trump incited an insurrection on video. His own base can testify to that.

That's not evidence of anything. Trump saying "we will march to the Capital peacefully and legally" is evidence he didn't incite anything. That the FBI knew about this happening is also a fact.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Inciting an insurrection is not a First Amendment right, and Trump is receiving due process. Next?

When you provide evidence he incited a riot, then bring it on. I asked other leftists to do the same and everyone of you failed.

Due process is impeaching a President with no impeachable offense, bribe or crime? Not having Trump's lawyers to defend himself during the process is due process? Not presenting evidence and no investigation into the charge is due process?

 

[B. Kidd]

When has Dershowitz ever been right about anything?

The 1st shampeachment, dotard!

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

That's nothing more than you could expect from anybody. Dershowitz has a history of making his decisions based on the party talking points instead of the law. This is the kind of crap Dershowitz spouts.

Responding to a question about how presidents conduct foreign policy, Dershowitz asserted Wednesday that “every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest.” Therefore, he continued, “if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

 

[daveman]

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.

That's nothing more than you could expect from anybody. Dershowitz has a history of making his decisions based on the party talking points instead of the law. This is the kind of crap Dershowitz spouts.

Responding to a question about how presidents conduct foreign policy, Dershowitz asserted Wednesday that “every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest.” Therefore, he continued, “if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Party talking points?

He's a Democrat, you idiot.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

That's nothing more than you could expect from anybody. Dershowitz has a history of making his decisions based on the party talking points instead of the law. This is the kind of crap Dershowitz spouts.

Responding to a question about how presidents conduct foreign policy, Dershowitz asserted Wednesday that “every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest.” Therefore, he continued, “if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Party talking points?

He's a Democrat, you idiot.

Unsatisfied With Just *Becoming* A Republican, Alan Dershowitz Is Going Back In Time To Be A Republican All Along - Above the Law

You see, he was just tricked into being a Democrat before...

abovethelaw.com

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.

 

[BWK]

It's a fact that Trump incited an insurrection on video. His own base can testify to that.

That's not evidence of anything. Trump saying "we will march to the Capital peacefully and legally" is evidence he didn't incite anything. That the FBI knew about this happening is also a fact.

It will be once they testify. I've heard them myself that they went there under his direction to storm the Capitol. That's what they understood, it's what I understand, and it's what Don Jr. understood. He was giving us the play by play; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald

 

[BWK]

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.

Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.

Oh yes he did. Ask his supporters who are in jail. They said it was under his direction. The play by play by Don Jr. is all the evidence you need; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald

 

[B. Kidd]

It's a fact that Trump incited an insurrection on video. His own base can testify to that.

That's not evidence of anything. Trump saying "we will march to the Capital peacefully and legally" is evidence he didn't incite anything. That the FBI knew about this happening is also a fact.

It will be once they testify. I've heard them myself that they went there under his direction to storm the Capitol. That's what they understood, it's what I understand, and it's what Don Jr. understood. He was giving us the play by play; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald

You sourced New Zealand to find this.
Pygmy Biden supporters in New Guinea salute you. Carry on.....

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.

I just think it’s weird that a thousand Trump supporters stormed the Capitol all at the same time despite each and everyone of them supposedly deciding to do so without anyone telling them they should do it.

It’s like, a pretty big coincidence.

 

[RodISHI]

Absent such a ruling, this is nothing but subjective opinion and speculation, completely devoid of merit or authority.

What do you call this impeachment? It's opinion and not fact. Facts prove otherwise.

It's a fact that Trump incited an insurrection on video. His own base can testify to that.

Calling for an audit of erroneous vote tallies is not insurrection. It is though very constitutional to protect and defend that constitution and it is the the absolute duty of every elected official, judge and military member in this country to do so.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.

Oh yes he did. Ask his supporters who are in jail. They said it was under his direction. The play by play by Don Jr. is all the evidence you need; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald

OMG what a crock. What evidence is that video supposed to be? are you joking? They were celebrating the turnout.You could clearly see that on their screen in the tent. "go fight" when used in political terms especialy in D.C. is used ALL THE TIME. All the time! its got nothing to do with promoting a riot. Show some evidence or you got nothing.

They were celebrating before the March so they all thought. Not the break in to the Capitol. Prove by your video that they knew there was going to be a pre-meditated break in of the Capitol.

Furthermore supposing somehow Trump was behind a premeditated break in of the Capitol building... what practical purpose would that serve him? Trump was always seeking a legal remedy to what he saw as corrupt election practices.
Those States in question changed their election procedures without input from their state legislatures. That is a constitutional violation and Trump has every right to protest that without being called for sedition or making a coup attempt. This is pretty ridiculous but it is the Democrats here we are talking about.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.

I just think it’s weird that a thousand Trump supporters stormed the Capitol all at the same time despite each and everyone of them supposedly deciding to do so without anyone telling them they should do it.

It’s like, a pretty big coincidence.

Sometimes in a massive crowd, as in any demonstration, people will get caught up in the excitement and follow the person in front of them. I think this was a part of it, though its clear that people who brought zip ties and built some sort of gallows had previously thought this thing through.

If it was really a planned over throw by a larger group with any type of sophistication they would have had actual weapons.... like guns and completely took the place over. That didnt happen either.

 

[BWK]

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.

Did you read my post? Trump protested the election results. Trump did not storm the Capitol building or tell ANYONE else to do so.

Whoever it was who decided to storm the Capitol owns it and they are guilty themselves.
Like Pelosi herself said when it came to mobs acting badly "people are going to do what they are going to do"
Otherwise are you going to criminalize anyone who speaks out that they believe the election was stolen? Until there is an investigation there are no grounds to impeach Trump either. We all know this is the same group who wanted to find a way to impeach him the moment he was elected.
There is nothing impartial or objective about any of this right now.

Oh yes he did. Ask his supporters who are in jail. They said it was under his direction. The play by play by Don Jr. is all the evidence you need; US Capitol riots: Footage of the Trumps celebrating at rally before riots - NZ Herald

OMG what a crock. What evidence is that video supposed to be? are you joking? They were celebrating the turnout.You could clearly see that on their screen in the tent. "go fight" when used in political terms especialy in D.C. is used ALL THE TIME. All the time! its got nothing to do with promoting a riot. Show some evidence or you got nothing.

They were celebrating before the March so they all thought. Not the break in to the Capitol. Prove by your video that they knew there was going to be a pre-meditated break in of the Capitol.

Furthermore supposing somehow Trump was behind a premeditated break in of the Capitol building... what practical purpose would that serve him? Trump was always seeking a legal remedy to what he saw as corrupt election practices.
Those States in question changed their election procedures without input from their state legislatures. That is a constitutional violation and Trump has every right to protest that without being called for sedition or making a coup attempt. This is pretty ridiculous but it is the Democrats here we are talking about.

Celebrating the turnout? Wow, now that's the best lie of the day. Didn't you hear what pussy ass Jr. was saying? T minus a few seconds, while watching them storm the capitol you lying ass moron. Awesome patriots sick of the bs Jr. said. We heard fight, combat, don't concede, kick ass and take names, etc. That's not celebrating a turn out.