Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 125,861
- 90,690
- 3,635
LOLOLNope. They're voted on separately.The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.
I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.
And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.
Exactly, it says "removal, and disqualification" not removal, OR disqualification. Removal must come first, which isn't possible.
.
Judgment - Removal and Disqualification
, of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretationlaw.justia.comBecause conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction
What commie lawyer dreamed that up?
.
By "commie," you mean who proved me wrong.
You could have just looked at the footnotes and you would have seen that article is based on precedence...
856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).
[emphasis mine]