Serious Question

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
By the by, you are making a sweeping statement "the judiciary are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt".
I wonder how far Trump’s lawyers would’ve gotten with THAT argument.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
2,161
Points
325
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.
You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.
Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.
Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.
No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?
So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.
Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”
Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.
So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
12,133
Reaction score
6,222
Points
940
BS. You know some of crowd dynamics, whether you can stoke a crowd or not. Donnie is on the hot plate. The people are individually responsible, but does not let donnie off the hook. Founders desigened impeachment to punish presidents for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is not political revenge. He committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Donnie should have kept his mouth shut. Nobody has pulled this crap before.
He committed no crime nor did he commit a misdemeanor, just like the first phony impeachment. The only one that committed a high crime is Piglosi for creating an impeachment against a President who exercised his first amendment rights. She should be charged with treason for trying to overthrow the government, sentenced, and spend the rest of her life in prison.

And don't say free speech doesn't apply to Trump unless you can point out where in Trump's speech he told his followers to break into the Capital and commit illegal acts.
If you are correct and it is perfectly fine to spread baseless suspicion (as shown by Rudy and crew) in court unless willing to suffer contempt of court punishment, if you gin up a crowd with legally unprovable charges, and have underlings on the same stage with you urging the mob to fight, and even going so far as suggest you will march to the capitol with them to make their voices heard, urging them to be strong, suggesting it is the only way to take back their country, and then send them to the capital, you have started something with a not so gentle and certainly not innocent push and put an avalanche in motion against the government and both houses of congress. It is easily a treasonable offense and impeachable offense, as high crimes and misdemeanor is a nebulous charging standard. In his shoes, would you have invited them to washing and stirred them up in a last ditch attempt to overthrow and election already decided? No.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
2,161
Points
325
Maybe those that do not will be committing suicide or at least limiting themselves from ever being considered for the highest office. The Supremes will sit this one out, except for presiding, pretty much like they blew off appeals based on how many votes donnie got, as you are still trying to uses.
This is a real constitutional issue here as it's never been done before. The SC won't blow this off like the election claims. Republican Senators get their vote from Republican voters for the most part. Given Trump's popularity with us, nobody in their right mind will vote to convict.
There is precedent for holding government officers accountable after leaving government service, specifically, military officers. He was commander and chief of the military, the highest officer, requiring a salute, unlike senators or representitives. It was ratified in the supreme court. Do you think they would hold a president to a lower standard? If I go out and commit treason or sedition, possibly only conduct unbecoming an officer, specifically against the country or the military tomorrow, I can face court martial, to the extent of loss of pay and benefits. The military would be the convening authority (in my case, the Army). The Senate is the convening authority over trials of the president.
I think you're going to have to make up your alleged mind whether Trump remains a government official or is now a private citizen. Can't have it both ways.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.
You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.
Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.
Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.
No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?
So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.
Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”
Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.
So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.
well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
2,161
Points
325
By the by, you are making a sweeping statement "the judiciary are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt".
I wonder how far Trump’s lawyers would’ve gotten with THAT argument.
I wonder why you think it matters. Pretty silly to think the US is the only government with a judiciary or that they all are aware and understand that there is but one bright and shining TRUTH that they are committed to abide by. (OMG, I choked myself up!)
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,811
Reaction score
17,046
Points
2,290
well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?
Because they didn't consider Africans as human beings at the time. Even after slavery ended, they were still only considered 2/3 human.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
50,143
Reaction score
12,109
Points
2,180
Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.
But certifications by 50 states, the US Senate, the US House, and 60 lawsuits do.
No, they actually don't. If leftists had any actual sense of right and wrong, they wouldn't keep telling us about, "Look at all the important people who agree with me, that must mean I'm right!!!"
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?
Because they didn't consider Africans as human beings at the time. Even after slavery ended, they were still only considered 2/3 human.
The Declaration didn’t say that
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,060
Reaction score
695
Points
140
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Everyone is a private citizen and it depends on the situation. For example President pays taxes and vote as a private citizen. Impeachment is a political process to remove government official from office. It obviously is not a criminal or civil suit. Granted Trump is no longer in office. But he is eligible to run and hold other federal government offices.. Clearly the impeachment will only decide one issue. Will he be able to hold any official government position in the future. I would say that they probably can because the constitution is not clear on that issue. If you wanted to stop and possible future political office then impeachment would be the way.

The interesting thing about it is that it started when he was in office. Even though he is a citizen he does get security protection and pay. He also has people who work for him that are paid by government funds. So if he is impeached will that nullify all the above.

It can be debated but since he did hold office and the process was started before he left office then obviously they believe they can conclude the process.

The rest will probably have to be settle in a traditional court. I am sure Trump will bring it to the Supreme court assuming that the there is enough senate votes. Mitch has washed his hand of it and left it up to the individual senators. Interesting development but I believe that Mitch think Trump went to far with has election fraud. Time to cut the cord.

And disqualification from office can be found, where?

.

Article II ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President")

if you were to literally translate that then no one born after the adoption of this constitution would be eligible for the office of President. Simply based on the way it is written.

yet people born after the adoption of the constitution became presidents. Because it was written a long time ago by people who could only imagine what was before them at that point in time and left it up to the future people to figure it out. They could never imagine what the world would be like today. Clearly they intended for it to extend beyond their time.

Now if they can remove a person from office using impeachment it would imply that they cannot run again and get elected to that same office.


Article 1, section 3 reads as follows:

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
well it does exactly say it the way you have phrased it but it certainly implies that the person who was found guilty should be disqualified to hold any office of honor which would include any future office of honor. Of course it could be argued and that why they have the supreme court. It is pretty clear to me why they are continuing with this and the only logical reason is to disqualify Trump from holding any office in the future. They still have to vote on it.

imagine this. if Trump just excepted defeat then he could have avoided this and run again. Well he may still be able to depending of the vote in the Senate. So you can see why they are doing it. Mitch has given the green light for repubs to do what they think is right.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,811
Reaction score
17,046
Points
2,290
If you are correct and it is perfectly fine to spread baseless suspicion (as shown by Rudy and crew) in court unless willing to suffer contempt of court punishment, if you gin up a crowd with legally unprovable charges, and have underlings on the same stage with you urging the mob to fight, and even going so far as suggest you will march to the capitol with them to make their voices heard, urging them to be strong, suggesting it is the only way to take back their country, and then send them to the capital, you have started something with a not so gentle and certainly not innocent push and put an avalanche in motion against the government and both houses of congress. It is easily a treasonable offense and impeachable offense, as high crimes and misdemeanor is a nebulous charging standard. In his shoes, would you have invited them to washing and stirred them up in a last ditch attempt to overthrow and election already decided? No.
Still doesn't equate to Trump telling them to vandalize, injure people, or break down the doors of the Capital. In this country, and especially in a legal sense, words mean things.

It's not just Trump and a group of people who felt the election was stolen, it's a majority of Republican voters.


So why do they believe this? Because any evidence team Trump put forward was rejected by the courts and/or local governments. This could have all been avoided with a little cooperation. Let the people on Trump's side like Colonel Waldron and others look at whatever they wanted to look at. If they came up with nothing, then that would have satisfied a lot of now suspicious and un-trusting voters. But I watched some of these experts testify to these local governments on very suspicious results and activities. Okay, if there's nothing to hide, what's wrong with them looking at the ballots, machines and software?

What they did instead is have a recount, by the same people that did the original count. Well duh. If voters suspect something was amiss with the original count, why would they be any more satisfied with the same people doing the recount or investigation into their potential claims?
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
68,811
Reaction score
17,046
Points
2,290
There is precedent for holding government officers accountable after leaving government service, specifically, military officers. He was commander and chief of the military, the highest officer, requiring a salute, unlike senators or representitives. It was ratified in the supreme court. Do you think they would hold a president to a lower standard? If I go out and commit treason or sedition, possibly only conduct unbecoming an officer, specifically against the country or the military tomorrow, I can face court martial, to the extent of loss of pay and benefits. The military would be the convening authority (in my case, the Army). The Senate is the convening authority over trials of the president.
The President is the commander and chief, not a member of the military. No, a US President has never had a Senate impeachment trial once out of office, so there is no precedence set on that. If the commies push it, the Supreme Court will set one.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,886
Reaction score
10,754
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.


You need to learn about William Belknap. He was the defense secretary and only member of a president's cabinet to be impeached.

He knew it would happen so he resigned prevent it.

The House didn't let that stop them. They voted unanimously to impeach him. The trial was held in the Senate they voted 37-29 to convict.

He was a private citizen when he was impeached and tried in the senate.

Where did you go to school? You were supposed to have learned this in school. I know I did.

Congress has done many unconstitutional things. Show me in the Constitution where they are given that authority.

.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
12,133
Reaction score
6,222
Points
940
If you are correct and it is perfectly fine to spread baseless suspicion (as shown by Rudy and crew) in court unless willing to suffer contempt of court punishment, if you gin up a crowd with legally unprovable charges, and have underlings on the same stage with you urging the mob to fight, and even going so far as suggest you will march to the capitol with them to make their voices heard, urging them to be strong, suggesting it is the only way to take back their country, and then send them to the capital, you have started something with a not so gentle and certainly not innocent push and put an avalanche in motion against the government and both houses of congress. It is easily a treasonable offense and impeachable offense, as high crimes and misdemeanor is a nebulous charging standard. In his shoes, would you have invited them to washing and stirred them up in a last ditch attempt to overthrow and election already decided? No.
Still doesn't equate to Trump telling them to vandalize, injure people, or break down the doors of the Capital. In this country, and especially in a legal sense, words mean things.

It's not just Trump and a group of people who felt the election was stolen, it's a majority of Republican voters.


So why do they believe this? Because any evidence team Trump put forward was rejected by the courts and/or local governments. This could have all been avoided with a little cooperation. Let the people on Trump's side like Colonel Waldron and others look at whatever they wanted to look at. If they came up with nothing, then that would have satisfied a lot of now suspicious and un-trusting voters. But I watched some of these experts testify to these local governments on very suspicious results and activities. Okay, if there's nothing to hide, what's wrong with them looking at the ballots, machines and software?

What they did instead is have a recount, by the same people that did the original count. Well duh. If voters suspect something was amiss with the original count, why would they be any more satisfied with the same people doing the recount or investigation into their potential claims?
If you light the match and a fire gets out of hand, you are held responsible, especially if you exercise no control to keep it contained where and how you want it.
 

White 6

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
12,133
Reaction score
6,222
Points
940
There is precedent for holding government officers accountable after leaving government service, specifically, military officers. He was commander and chief of the military, the highest officer, requiring a salute, unlike senators or representitives. It was ratified in the supreme court. Do you think they would hold a president to a lower standard? If I go out and commit treason or sedition, possibly only conduct unbecoming an officer, specifically against the country or the military tomorrow, I can face court martial, to the extent of loss of pay and benefits. The military would be the convening authority (in my case, the Army). The Senate is the convening authority over trials of the president.
The President is the commander and chief, not a member of the military. No, a US President has never had a Senate impeachment trial once out of office, so there is no precedence set on that. If the commies push it, the Supreme Court will set one.
Not likely they will go against precedents set by them for lessor individuals unless intending the president is beyond all control. If that is the case, he really could have shot people on 5th avenues. afterall he was president and it would fit with your theory of being above the law.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
2,161
Points
325
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Well, and even though I am on Trump's side here, seems like once someone has served as POTUS he's sort of considered a President for life. I don't agree with it, but the bad guys are gonna take this one to the limits and beyond. I'll even go so far myself as to say Trump brought this on himself in the sense that he could have declared martial law, called up the regular Army, and wiped our government clean of ALL traitors. In the process he might have even avoided a second impeachment trial. Instead he handed our government and all of us right over to the most evil incarnation of US Government in America's history. I won't shed one tear for any demise Trump might meet at the hands of the democrats and traitor republicans. He had the chance to possibly save our civilization and he walked away. Better to die a hero than be drawn and quartered as some kind of half-assed martyr.
You mean by commiting a military coup he would have saved the country? What country are you referring to? Zimbabwe?

The coup attempt was the fraudulent election. Your Zimbabwe was engineered by the democrats and their republican turncoat allies. Our nation was founded in rebellion. To deny that is to deny your own history and national identity.
Calling an election you lost fraudulent doesn’t make it so. As is evident by the claims being rejected by the judiciary, the DOJ, the lawyers representing the plaintiff for election disputes (even Powell retracted her case) and now hard-line Conservative "news" outlets like American thinker and OAAN. The only places people insist it happened is the dark reccesses of the internet. If your friends and enemies allnsay the same thing you probably should take notice.

By the way for someone who doesn't believe in a POTUS for life you seem perfectly content with trying to install one.
Claiming you won an honest election doesn't make it so either.
No it doesn't, you are right. The way you prove that they were dis(honest) is by putting your case to the test in the only venue that has the constitutional power to grant relief if you dispute the election result. That power lays with the judiciary.

The judiciary has ruled overwhelmingly that the election results where valid. Those rulings where done by judges nominated by ALL presidents up until Reagan.

So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity? Why is it that you hold on to it it when even the AG, hardly a Democrat rejects it? Why is it that you hold on to it even when Trumps own lawyers are hesitant or even unwilling to assert it in court?
So my questions to you are. Why is it that you hold on to this claim of "stolen elections" when it's been rejected by that entity?

That question has been answered repeatedly and the answer remains the same. The judiciary is a branch of government and governments (including the judiciary) are well known to become tyrannical and corrupt. The Founders made it quite clear by word and deed that the people were to be the final judge and that it their Right and duty to alter or replace government if and when needed. Also refusing to hear the evidence is not the same as rejecting. "..of the People, for People, by the People..." The People are speaking. You best listen.
Where does the Constitution say that. It’s filled with provisions giving sole authority to Congress, The Judicaty, and other pats of government. see Article 1, section 3 clause 6 where SOLE POWER to try an impeachment is granted to the Senate, not to the “people”
Predates the Constitution:


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These were the people who made this Country at the risk of their lives through revolt and insurrection against their legitimate government. If that weren't example enough they gave us a Constitution of checks and balances with the people as the ultimate check to balance the government.
So the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are at odds with each. The difference is that the Declaration has no legal authority. It is a DECLARATION of principles. as is the Gettysburg Address.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are at odds only if you presume that laws (made by government) were intended to trump Rights (of the People) when they clearly were not.
well, the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. If the Declaration has the force of law, why was slavery around for another 89 tears?

the Constitution grants power through a representative form of government. The people’s power is Exercised through voting and through Representation in Congress. When congress acts, they are doing so because they were elected to do just that.

the Declaration does not have the force of law.
Who said otherwise? Not me. The Peoples Rights are separate from and above government whims AKA "the force of law".

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Simple. When if there is no consent there is no just power to the government. That is a founding principle; not a mere law of a government with no just power. Oh the government may still have some physical power with which to intimidate and oppress the people and might even succeed even in suppressing them for a time but a house divided against itself cannot stand indefinitely (also not a law).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

"...Right of the People..." Right; not law. Laws are whatever a government wants to claim they are. Rights are so very much more and not subject to government approval.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,886
Reaction score
10,754
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
Once the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate, that put the Senate in a position to act, the impeachment is just a part, the issue facing the Senate is whether to allow Trump to hold a public office.

I’d be interested in what a judicial decision would look like.

The house didn't present the article of impeachment before Trump left office.


Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Funny I don't see disqualification for office listed here and he's already gone.

.
Article 1, Section 3:

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.

So you're saying removal and disqualification must go hand in hand. That's not possible here. It doesn't say removal, "OR" disqualification.

.
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,060
Reaction score
695
Points
140
3 scenario's

1. A person yells fire and there is no one in the room. No harm no foul
2. A person yells fire in a room full of people. No one gets hurt and no property damage. No harm, no foul, but people may think he is an idiot.
3. A person yells fire in a room full of people and people get hurt and there is property damage. Yeah the person did not physically hurt the people or damage the property but he will he held accountable. He may beat criminal charges but civil liability may be different.

Trump was careful to use terminology such as stay peaceful but he also used terminology to indicate injustice with no conceivable proof of it. All avenues were denied him in a legal setting.

So the interesting thing is that his handlers told him to say that they should stay peaceful because without it the case would crumble if it turned violent. So this does suggest that they suspected that it could turn violent.

One - either because it a protest and it could happen.

Two - The FBI and others were aware thru surveillance of social media accounts that showed that there could be violence among the extremists who would show up. Which is bad because he continued with it when there was a possibility of violence. At this point it is only my speculation but it begs the question why would he not be notified of this by the FBI or other intelligence organizations. There was a large time lag between when the riot occurred and when it was initial planned. He should have been notified and if he was then this is a new development which would prove inciting a riot.

Three- even Trump appears to visit social media site and it should have been obvious that they were getting rowdy and would be beyond his control.

So Joe needs to find out what Trump knew and when did he know it.

Still going back to my earlier point that Trump does not like to lose.

while he was sitting with family and friends having a grand time. His minions "sent to stop the steal" and anyone would realize that protest can turn to riots.

The guy has been dealing with this for the last year. My take is he did not care as this was his last shot.
 
Last edited:

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
2,161
Points
325
There is precedent for holding government officers accountable after leaving government service, specifically, military officers. He was commander and chief of the military, the highest officer, requiring a salute, unlike senators or representitives. It was ratified in the supreme court. Do you think they would hold a president to a lower standard? If I go out and commit treason or sedition, possibly only conduct unbecoming an officer, specifically against the country or the military tomorrow, I can face court martial, to the extent of loss of pay and benefits. The military would be the convening authority (in my case, the Army). The Senate is the convening authority over trials of the president.
The President is the commander and chief, not a member of the military. No, a US President has never had a Senate impeachment trial once out of office, so there is no precedence set on that. If the commies push it, the Supreme Court will set one.
Not likely they will go against precedents set by them for lessor individuals unless intending the president is beyond all control. If that is the case, he really could have shot people on 5th avenues. afterall he was president and it would fit with your theory of being above the law.
WTF you calling "lesser individuals"? If Congress can ignore the Constitutional Right of the People to due process, it is the Congress that is out of control.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top