Serious Question

[Uncensored2008]

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?

.

The Reich seeks revenge against their political enemies.

We are a post-constitutional nation now. The Reich assumes all power, it need not justify anything.

I wonder what the Reich would do if the last legitimate president of the old Republic were to simply tell them to fuck off?

 

[Kilroy2]

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.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't want opinions, I can provide just as many opposite opinions. Show me in the Constitution.

.

We are no longer governed by the Constitution.

The Reich is the only law.

 

[White 6]

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.

Who didn't have due process?

 

[MadDog]

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.

Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.

as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The president is at the top of the civilian leadership of the military, he is not subject to the UCMJ.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 an 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.

No matter what he knew or what unknowable things he might have thought he must be judged-if at all-on what he actually did and said; not what you or anybody else thinks about it. He is a private citizen and no longer subject to impeachment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.

as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.

We are certainly not a nation of laws, as the two tiered injustice system well demonstrates.

We are a nation where the Reich, the democrat party - is the only law.

 

[boedicca]

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?

.

We live in a Banana Republic now, bub.

The Show Trial must go on in order to distract the plebes from how the Elites are plundering the country.

 

[MadDog]

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 an 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.

No matter what he knew or what unknowable things he might have thought he must be judged-if at all-on what he actually did and said; not what you or anybody else thinks about it. He is a private citizen and no longer subject to impeachment.

He was impeached While he was president. Do you understand that. Not much to debate there. There is no expiration date

Article 1, Section 2 clause 6 states that the SENATE HAS SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS. All of them. Not much to debate there either. I’m sure Trump’s SCOTUS will decide the matter. If they do, I’m willing to accept their decision. If Trumps court doesn’t agree with you, will YOU accept it. Or do you put yourself above the SCOTUS and the Constitution?

Oops, stupid question. Of course you put yourself above them.

if you keep looking things up, you might look I’m the Articles Of Confederation. Maybe they have something you want to twist too!

 

[MadDog]

Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.

as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.

We are certainly not a nation of laws, as the two tiered injustice system well demonstrates.

We are a nation where the Reich, the democrat party - is the only law.

The German Reich was far right wing. Why are you invoking them?

 

[DrLove]

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?

My thoughts? Why are you people doing backflips to protect a seditionist and a traitor?

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.

as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.

your rights are defined by the Constitution

Which is exactly what I have been saying but you can't seem to understand. The Constitution; not "law" as defined by government. It is the right of the people to be the final judge of what the Constitution says. Even the SC is a part of government and as such cannot speak for the people.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.

as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.

We are certainly not a nation of laws, as the two tiered injustice system well demonstrates.

We are a nation where the Reich, the democrat party - is the only law.

The German Reich was far right wing. Why are you invoking them?

Only in your opinion.

 

[MadDog]

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.

The point is moot. The Senate has sole power to try ALL impeachments. Nowhere does it place expiration conditions on the indictment.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

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?

.

For the record, I am completely against impeachment & a strong Trump supporter, but that wasn't what you were asking.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7 state:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

It is quite interesting.

Since Trump is not president, Chief Justice Roberts would not have to preside.

The word "and" in Clause 7 is rather interesting, but I suppose only doing disqualification of future offices does not "extend further" than doing both. I would bet that despite there being three or more Constitutional orignalists on the SCOTUS, they would prefer not to get involved in the legislature, just like they did for the election lawsuits, even though it would seem completely appropriate.

Clearly, the last sentence about a legal trial could extend until the statute of limitations ran out. So if you can conduct a legal trial after the fact (they always are), then I suppose you can conduct an impeachment trial of someone who you think is unfit to hold future office, after they leave office, just because it makes sense.

Let's say a president does something actually treasonous like taking bribes from China or some covert deal with another nation that results in US troops getting killed. I would be all for impeachment after leaving office.

But this impeachment is just another political attack on a very powerful adversary of the globalists' agenda, so the Dems will do everything they can to weaken it.

Unity, my foot.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You might want to check the definition of "natural born citizen" Your interpretation is whacko.

Where does it say removal "or" disqualification. The way I read it they must go hand in hand, which isn't possible.

And what you're saying is you commies are scared shitless that Trump might run again, after the American people see how badly quid pro joe fucks things up. biden is doing a bang up job of doing just that and only been in office 51 hours.

.

 

[MadDog]

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.

Blah, blah, blah. We are a nation of laws. Without laws, there is no government. Without government, there is anarchist. Which makes you another QAnut anarchist.

as a people, we adopted and accept the constitution. your rights are defined by the Constitution not an essay in a declaration.

your rights are defined by the Constitution

Which is exactly what I have been saying but you can't seem to understand. The Constitution; not "law" as defined by government. It is the right of the people to be the final judge of what the Constitution says. Even the SC is a part of government and as such cannot speak for the people.

What twisted logic. The Constitution specifically bestows upon Congress the act to enact laws. SPECIFICALLY.

I don’t know of a single instance where. the Constitution give people the right to enact laws, enforce laws, or interpret laws. Even the power to amend the Constitution is bestowed on Governmental bodies.

Bottom line is you appear to be proposing the overthrow of the government and the Constitution. If not, what ARE you proposing.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

But if the people are divide who is right. Which rights of the people are just. If the group lost then they should accept it. Hiding behind we the people when it is just "the like minded" people who would not accept the rights of the other people who disagree.

Would that be like the conformity culture you commies are now demanding?

.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't want opinions, I can provide just as many opposite opinions. Show me in the Constitution.

.

We are no longer governed by the Constitution.

The Reich is the only law.

Yep, quid pro joe told his first lie in office at noon on the 20th when he took the constitutional oath. He has no intent to keep that oath.

.