Who is the Federalist Society and what are they saying about Trump’s impeachment

OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Inciting an insurrection is a crime.
The was no crime committed by Trump.
Criminal offenses are tried in a criminal court of law.
The Senate is not a criminal court of law. ... :cool:
You didn’t read the article, did you.

The Constitution provides for impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors“. It also says that the Senate has the sole power to try and convict ANY impeachment.
 

Staidhup

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
4,673
Reaction score
1,284
Points
245
Location
PNW
Lots of CNN legal scholars here yet it’s apparent no one is a constitutional attorney. Let’s just see how they succeed in bending the Constitution to fit their narrative.
My bet is that they can not.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
What would they impeach Trump over. And they need 60 votes. American public will sour on this nonsense and waste of time and $$$ real quick. Go ahead , impeach him, help rise his political star again.
The number required is 67 and if the Senate includes secret ballots (which they can) There might be enough Replicans voting to convict without fear of ever being found out.

But if all your worried about is time and money, do you actually know how much it would cost. Would it be as much time and money as Trump spent on his 320 golf outings. Would it be as much money as he charged his Secret Service details to stay at his resorts.

I’m sure a lot of people would pitch in to defray the cost. This is what I pay taxes for.
You replied to Bush92 but tagged me.
In retrospect I agree with Bush92 as being a waste of time and tax payers money.
The expended resources wouldnt fit the alleged crime imo.
Sorry
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Lots of CNN legal scholars here yet it’s apparent no one is a constitutional attorney. Let’s just see how they succeed in bending the Constitution to fit their narrative.
My bet is that they can not.
That’s why I posted the links at the beginning of this thread. A bunch of conservative and libertarian legal experts say that TRUMP absolutely can be tried and convicted.
 

MarcATL

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
28,756
Reaction score
8,587
Points
480
Lots of CNN legal scholars here yet it’s apparent no one is a constitutional attorney. Let’s just see how they succeed in bending the Constitution to fit their narrative.
My bet is that they can not.
Cite the part that they "bent?"
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
I've never hear of a person who voluntarily left a company he worked for when his contract was over and went home.
And then officially fired weeks later by the new management of the company. ... :cuckoo:
Inciting an insurrection is a crime.
It is now solely in the hands of the Senate toed side whether a crime has been committed. if this goes to trial, there is no court of appeal. Trump could argue to the courts that he can’t be tried, if it goes to trial, the Senate decides.
 

Dogbiscuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
2,326
Reaction score
2,810
Points
1,903
No doubt these are uncharted waters.
An interesting related article.

Some also argue that the courts would not address the issue because it is a political question or a matter up to the Senate. That’s not true, it is a constitutional matter — May the Senate convict a president after the president has left office? That’s a threshold matter that I think SCOTUS would decide. If SCOTUS answered in the affirmative, then it would not nitpick Senate procedures, but whether the Senate even has constitutional authority is not up to the Senate.
So at best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
So impeachment is a way for the corrupt congress to ignore the will of the people and insure that the people don't get to chose who they want as president.
Funny how some people are worried about the will of the people after trying to suppress votes and overturn the will of 80,000,000 people
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
57,462
Reaction score
15,779
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
No doubt these are uncharted waters.
An interesting related article.

Some also argue that the courts would not address the issue because it is a political question or a matter up to the Senate. That’s not true, it is a constitutional matter — May the Senate convict a president after the president has left office? That’s a threshold matter that I think SCOTUS would decide. If SCOTUS answered in the affirmative, then it would not nitpick Senate procedures, but whether the Senate even has constitutional authority is not up to the Senate.
So at best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
They are not uncharted...

We've impeached two officers after they no longer held their positions....


 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,838
Reaction score
9,759
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
I’ll be the first to admit that there are differences of opinion over whether Trump can still be tried and convicted, but here’s a credible opinion and its rationale. Take a deep breath, read with an open mind (that’s asking a lot), then do some critical thinking.



“Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires,” they wrote. “But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction.”

The Federalist Society was established with conservative and liberal lawyers as a counter to liberal influences In the legal system and education system.



  • Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
The issue would be dead in the water except they want to stop Trump from running again, the move is quite obvious, not sure why we keep going over this.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
The issue would be dead in the water except they want to stop Trump from running again, the move is quite obvious, not sure why we keep going over this.
of course they want to ban him from office, and rightfully so. The humiliation and stain on his legacy are just a couple of bonuses.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,838
Reaction score
9,759
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
The issue would be dead in the water except they want to stop Trump from running again, the move is quite obvious, not sure why we keep going over this.
of course they want to ban him from office, and rightfully so. The humiliation and stain on his legacy are just a couple of bonuses.
And? We have known this since Jan 6th, not sure why there is thread after thread, it seems many threads just keep going over the same info over and over again. This group you are so proud of is saying the same thing many have been saying on both sides for a couple weeks.
 

Dogbiscuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
2,326
Reaction score
2,810
Points
1,903
No doubt these are uncharted waters.
An interesting related article.

Some also argue that the courts would not address the issue because it is a political question or a matter up to the Senate. That’s not true, it is a constitutional matter — May the Senate convict a president after the president has left office? That’s a threshold matter that I think SCOTUS would decide. If SCOTUS answered in the affirmative, then it would not nitpick Senate procedures, but whether the Senate even has constitutional authority is not up to the Senate.
So at best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.
They are not uncharted...

We've impeached two officers after they no longer held their positions....


From your first article
Debate among Federalists and Democratic Republicans swirled around whether they had the right to (a) impeach a senator and (b) impeach an official who had already been expelled. In the end, they voted to stop an impeachment trial without deciding the question. Blount remained popular in Tennessee and held state offices until his death. He was the only U.S. senator to be expelled until the Civil War.

From your second article
A majority of the senators voted to convict Belknap for his crimes, but they failed to reach the two-thirds majority required, so he won acquittal.

Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
 
OP
MadDog

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908
Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
That would be comparing apples to orange man.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
28,736
Reaction score
10,848
Points
910
Location
Niagara Escarpment
I’ll be the first to admit that there are differences of opinion over whether Trump can still be tried and convicted, but here’s a credible opinion and its rationale. Take a deep breath, read with an open mind (that’s asking a lot), then do some critical thinking.



“Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires,” they wrote. “But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction.”

The Federalist Society was established with conservative and liberal lawyers as a counter to liberal influences In the legal system and education system.



  • Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed to the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
Who is the Federalist Society indeed? If I were you, I'd sure as hell want to know where the money behind these people is coming from.



 

Dogbiscuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
2,326
Reaction score
2,810
Points
1,903
Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
That would be comparing apples to orange man.
I admit that was a good one.
On a side note, for some reason you are replying to one forum member but tagging/quoting a different.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,838
Reaction score
9,759
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Both examples being of different circumstances and characteristics of those particular crimes, compared to Trump are really not comparing apples to apples imo. If Im reading the articles correctly, it was not established that they were not eligible to run for any office again.
That would be comparing apples to orange man.
I didn’t write what you are commenting on, you messed up. You might want to correct you error and learn how to use quotes.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top