Serious Question

[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.

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.

That's not true, seen the 9th amendment.

.

 

[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?

.

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.

The Federalist Society points out that if you can’t try an out of office president, it would be possible for a President facing conviction to resign from office one minute before the Senate vote to avoid being barred from running. Not sure that’s what was intended again.

BTW, there are a lot of Republicans who want to weaken Trump too

 

[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?

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

Your ignorant opinion is duly noted and dismissed.

.

 

[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.

That's not true, seen the 9th amendment.

.

Sure, the Constitution refers to Rights it bestows. But it’s silly to say that your rights SUPERCEDE the Constitution. It is ays that the Constitution comes first and powers not conferred in it will revert to others.

 

[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.

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.

Only of the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, Trump is no longer the president, he is a private citizen.

..

 

[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?

.

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.

I agree in part, but if a president is found to have broken the law after leaving office they are subject to criminal prosecution.

.

 

[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.

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.

That's not true, seen the 9th amendment.

.

Sure, the Constitution refers to Rights it bestows. But it’s silly to say that your rights SUPERCEDE the Constitution. It is ays that the Constitution comes first and powers not conferred in it will revert to others.

See, like a typical commie you're conflating rights and powers. People have unlimited rights which comes from GOD, governments have limited powers granted by the people. Well that's the way it was intended to be.

.

 

[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.

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.

Even if they are a tiny minority people have a Right to disagree which includes the right to protest and attempt to change the situation. Even the courts have long agreed with this. If there are enough of them they also may have the power and history records that people who have the power very often use it to right a perceived wrong whether that complies with the law or not.

 

[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?

.

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.

The Federalist Society points out that if you can’t try an out of office president, it would be possible for a President facing conviction to resign from office one minute before the Senate vote to avoid being barred from running. Not sure that’s what was intended again.

BTW, there are a lot of Republicans who want to weaken Trump too

Worked for Nixon.

 

[MadDog]

Even if they are a tiny minority people have a Right to disagree which includes the right to protest and attempt to change the situation. Even the courts have long agreed with this. If there are enough of them they also may have the power and history records that people who have the power very often use it to right a perceived wrong whether that complies with the law or not.

we are in total agreement on most of that. What I don’t believe is that people have any right to change the government outside the framework of the Constitution.

 

[Circe]

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”

Seems pretty solid to me

But Dershowitz sez no. Wow.

I think they'd be idiots to focus the whole nation on something so negative for so long, but they did it the entire first two years of Trump's term, so I guess they are idiots!

People will remember this bad behavior at the ballot box. Hooray for Lindsay! Ted!

 

[Circe]

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.

Thanks for quoting it. That's what Dershowitz said: there's nothing about impeaching someone, or trying the impeachment, AFTER s/he leaves office.

Well, I guess we'll see what they do!

I suppose the law (especially the Constitution) doesn't much matter; just who has the power --- and the malice.

 

[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.

I agree in part, but if a president is found to have broken the law after leaving office they are subject to criminal prosecution.

.

Yeah, that's one of the prescribed penalties. The other is arguably the prohibition from holding future public office, which the Senate would presumably have jurisdiction over.

I would be very happy to see the SCOTUS decide the answer to your query.

The Senate is not going to get 67 votes anyway, are they? Why are the Dems pushing for all of this unity?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Thanks for quoting it. That's what Dershowitz said: there's nothing about impeaching someone, or trying the impeachment, AFTER s/he leaves office.

Well, I guess we'll see what they do!

I suppose the law (especially the Constitution) doesn't much matter; just who has the power --- and the malice.

Yep, the commies are pushing us closer to banana republic status day by day.

.

 

[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.

That's not true, seen the 9th amendment.

.

Sure, the Constitution refers to Rights it bestows. But it’s silly to say that your rights SUPERCEDE the Constitution. It is ays that the Constitution comes first and powers not conferred in it will revert to others.

But who is saying that their rights supersede the Constitution? Not me. But be advised that the People have rights; not governments. The Constitution delegates duties responsibilities and powers to government but not Rights. People have Rights. The Constitution requires the people to obey only those laws that are Constitutional. The government may try to require otherwise. Which in turn means individuals are in fact required to be the final interpreter of the Constitution as applied to their own actions.

 

[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?

.

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.

I agree in part, but if a president is found to have broken the law after leaving office they are subject to criminal prosecution.

.

Yeah, that's one of the prescribed penalties. The other is arguably the prohibition from holding future public office, which the Senate would presumably have jurisdiction over.

I would be very happy to see the SCOTUS decide the answer to your query.

The Senate is not going to get 67 votes anyway, are they? Why are the Dems pushing for all of this unity?

nazi palousey wanted Trump impeached twice, she thinks that will cement her place in history, that's the only reason she did it. But I still don't think the senate has the constitutional authority to put a private citizen on trial.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Senate is not going to get 67 votes anyway, are they? Why are the Dems pushing for all of this unity?

They don't stand a chance at getting close to 67. Any Republican that votes for it will see retaliation from their constituent their next reelection.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

BTW, there are a lot of Republicans who want to weaken Trump too

No, just a handful. Trump gained 12 million more followers this election than his first one. That's quite a jump.

 

[MadDog]

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”

Seems pretty solid to me

But Dershowitz sez no. Wow.

I think they'd be idiots to focus the whole nation on something so negative for so long, but they did it the entire first two years of Trump's term, so I guess they are idiots!

People will remember this bad behavior at the ballot box. Hooray for Lindsay! Ted!

Release the Kraken! Made for great humor and got laughhed out of courts. The funniest part was the “secret military intelligence expert”, Spider, who admitted that calling him an expert was misleading. BTW, are contributing to Sidney’s defense fund.

you have to believe if Senate rules for the impeachment trial call for secret ballots, Ted is gonna vote to convict to clear the way for his own Senate run, all the while claiming no. Nobody will be the wiser.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The President is not an appointee, he was voted for by the people. A presidential impeachment is unique and like no other. There is nothing in the Constitution about it because the founders probably assumed people would always have some integrity. They couldn't see what future power hungry Democrats would be like.