Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Does not apply here.Ok, but repeat after me, “you can bar someone not in office from holding future office.” Then repeat after me, “ALL impeachments”As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?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?
.
Then:
" 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. "
The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.
Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.
.
He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?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?
.
Then:
" 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. "
The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.
Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.
.
Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.
Repeat after me, "you can't remove someone who holds no office".
.
You might want to research bills of attainder.
.
Zero evidence he incited any riotsWhere 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?
.
Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted
Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.www.politico.com
Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.
“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
Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.
..
Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”
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.
.
It also exists to prevent the offender from holding office again.Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”
Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.
..
Payback’s a bitch!
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?
.
Can you imagine the carnage at the Capitol building if the Senate tried a stunt like that?
Patriots are pissed enough over a stolen election.
Let me correct that for you:
PatriotsTrump Traitors arepissedenoughgoing to prison overabeing stupid enough to believe Trump's lies about a stolen election.
You're welcome.
How're you gonna look in a pink jumpsuit?
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.
.
The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.
Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.
..
Payback’s a bitch!
Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”
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.
.
The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.
Are you forgetting the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? Citizenship in the US was established prior to the adoption of the current Constitution.
.
There are arguments on both sides. I think it will ultimately be up to SCOTUS to decide on the Constitutionality of a trial If it is challenged. Would you agree?Funny, I heard Roberts told some associates “I can’t wait to nail the bastards ass” then high-fived Sonia Sotomayor.I just heard the Chief Justice said he won't be presiding on the sham trial, he said he only presides over an impeachment of "THE" president, which at this point in time is quid pro joe.
..
Payback’s a bitch!
I can cite two senators who confirmed it, can you?
.
That was the whole point of Article 1 Section 3 clause 7 which sets the consequences of conviction as removal from office AND prohibition of holding office again.Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”
It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.
Gotta link?You heard wrong...Roberts will not hear the impeachment.
Impeachment exists for the express purpose of removing a criminal from office. Once they are out of office it is pointless. Presidents are already limited to two terms and Congress has no authority to commandeer the people's function in determining who should be President. Instead we should be considering limits to the number of terms Congressmen and women are allowed to "serve". After a lifetime in office they manage to vote themselves nearly unlimited wealth and power and forget what they are supposed to be there for.“If it were unconstitutional to finish impeachment proceedings for a former official, then Congress would never be able to ban officials from future office: the subject official would just resign moments before the Senate vote. said. In order to give meaning to the constitutional text, the official can’t control that process of disqualification for serious misconduct. Which means it has to apply to former officials as well.”
It most certainly is not pointless if it prevents a criminal from running for election later, as Trump has made clear it is his intention to do.
So your the one who defines “relevance”? Thats an awfully long word for someone who doesn’t understand the word “all”.As pointed out before, the Constitution does not require that.Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?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?
.
Then:
" 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. "
The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.
Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.
.
He‘s been impeached and the Senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachments. What part of the word ”all” don’t you understand. Cuz it’s really pretty simple.
Article 2 isn’t the only mention of impeachment. Disqualification is mentioned elsewhere. And there’s always that thing that the Senate has the power to try ALL impeachments. References it impeachment occur in multiple parts of the Constitution, not just the part that you mistakenly think is exclusionary.Is Trump still receiving benefits from his time as president?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?
.
Then:
" 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. "
The Constitution does not require a person to be holding office to be impeached. Since Trump is still receiving benefits now and into the future and can run for office again impeachment is the sole political solution to the allegations against him.
Go back and read post 14, the Constitution does require people to be holding office to be impeached. Once a person leaves office there are no "political solutions" available. The Constitution only give congress the jurisdiction to impeach current office holders.
.
Repeat after me a-l-l spells all.
I quoted the relevant section in the context of a response to the query.
The other instances of the word "impeach" in the Constitution are not relevant to the discussion.
Sorry for your error.
But your tactic is interesting. Find anything that doesn’t suit your narrative and dismiss it as irrelevant. No need to apologize to me. The error is all yours.
Relevance is.
Trying to make something relevant when it is not does not make your argument. It is only an attempt, a failed attempt to cloud the discussion with falsehoods.
What you have failed miserably anyone might add, is to either make a cogent argument or knock down mine.
So, I do apologise. Obviously you missed that semester when the ACTUAL Constitution was discussed as so clearly demonstrated by your Patrick Starr understanding of the document. Sorry you ended up with that "kissing disease" from that one meeting with Gym Jordan.
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.
.
The key words are "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" not natural born citizen. They go together. The way it is written says that you would have to be one at the time of the adoption of this constitution which was a long time ago. This is just to show that "show me where it says that" is not a valid argument for your position. It is just a position your taking and have to defend.
Are you forgetting the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation? Citizenship in the US was established prior to the adoption of the current Constitution.
.
Are you forgetting that as quickly as they agreed to it they they formally abandon it years later. Pretty let's do it again but establish an executive and judicial branch with balance of powers. So it holds no sway once they closed it. Probably why you do not hear to much about it in schools.
