9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,112
- 325
Certainly is pointless to try to remove from office someone who is not in office. What exactly gives Congress the authority to do that? Or the authority for Congress to in any way penalize even a sitting President without successfully finding him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors? You are slurping down the Kool Ade.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.