ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 8 of 8
« First < 45678
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Dershowitz Says You Can NOT Impeach a President After He Leaves Office
BucEyedPea 10:28 AM 01-13-2021
He's right ya' know. The language of the Constitution does not say that.
“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said.
Which mediots bought this media lie?

He also said this:
“The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office,” Dershowitz said in a Fox Business interview on Sunday.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democr...z_3650853.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...leaves-office/

[Reply]
JohnnyV13 01:40 PM 01-15-2021
Originally Posted by Shields68:
Probably. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does, my best guess is that they will punt it to the Senate. If the Senate thinks being out of office is good reason to vote no, they can vote no. If the Senate thinks he still needs to be impeached and removed and can get 2/3's of to vote that way, I think they will go along with it.

At this point I doubt they get the 2/3's. The best position for the Republicans is why are we wasting time on this when he is out of office.
Yeah, it's a fuzzy area of law and I do agree the most likely outcome is that the supreme court won't get involved due to a separation of powers theory.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 01:44 PM 01-15-2021
If Schumer puts on a trial after Trump leaves, it gives Trump the opportunity to show evidence of the election fraud in order to defend his speech and actions.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 01:46 PM 01-15-2021
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Just how do you think that would work under our constitution?
You really have to ask that?

Amendments provide an opportunity to add things to Constitution or change them. Like when Senators being chosen by State legislatures was changed to popular vote.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 01:47 PM 01-15-2021
Originally Posted by JohnnyV13:
Yeah, it's a fuzzy area of law and I do agree the most likely outcome is that the supreme court won't get involved due to a separation of powers theory.
It's not fuzzy at all. Only a Laurance Tribe advocate would say that. The language is clear, that it applies to a "President". He will not be not the President anymore. Furthermore to us originalists and strict constructionists where the document is silent it means there is no authority to act. Something else progressive usurpers do to abuse the Constitution so they can do whatever they way. So it's not like it will stop the real seditionists.

Originally Posted by :
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.
Not. Fuzzy. At. All.

There was no treason, no bribery, no high Crime or Misdemeanor. Purely political vengence. That could apply to Bush and Obama though.
[Reply]
Donger 01:51 PM 01-15-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
If Schumer puts on a trial after Trump leaves, it gives Trump the opportunity to show evidence of the election fraud in order to defend his speech and actions.
:-)

5G chess!
[Reply]
JohnnyV13 04:28 PM 01-15-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
It's not fuzzy at all. Only a Laurance Tribe advocate would say that. The language is clear, that it applies to a "President". He will not be not the President anymore. Furthermore to us originalists and strict constructionists where the document is silent it means there is no authority to act. Something else progressive usurpers do to abuse the Constitution so they can do whatever they way. So it's not like it will stop the real seditionists.



Not. Fuzzy. At. All.

There was no treason, no bribery, no high Crime or Misdemeanor. Purely political vengence. That could apply to Bush and Obama though.

Actually, BEP, it's called "realism." I'm more interested in predicting what a court will ACTUALLY do rather than what it should do according to libertarian theory or a textualist view.

I'm not saying that the court WON'T intervene, BTW. There are a majority of textualists/intent of the framer type judges on the court.

P.S. I really have come to agree with more libertarian positions. In particular, libertarian views about the Patriot Act and increasing authoritarianism coming from both mainline political parties. And, even though I'm hardly an Austrian economics loyalist, I do like its model about how low interest loans driven by Fed stimulus helps create income inequality. I think they've dead on nailed that analysis. In particular, I see Judge Napolitano, Walter Block, and Thomas Sowell as public intellectuals worth listening to.
[Reply]
Page 8 of 8
« First < 45678
Up