- Mar 24, 2007
- Reaction score
Thanks! It's true they did not convict Belknap! But on him, my main point, is they did impeach him, after he no longer held office, and did have a trial in the Senate, 3 weeks o r so, after he had resigned.... and no longer held office..... which is the argument of the debate,From your first articleThey are not uncharted...No doubt these are uncharted waters.
An interesting related article.
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.legalinsurrection.com
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.
We've impeached two officers after they no longer held their positions....
I'll leave the legal arguments to the lawyers, but my own last name is proof Congress can impeach and try newly minted private citizens.www.usatoday.com
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.
Can one be impeached and tried after no longer in office?
The answer is yes.