ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 8
< 12345 678 >
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]
BucEyedPea 06:29 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by JohnnyV13:
The first text and treatise that most lawyers are assigned to read in constitutional law is Laurence Tribe's work.
So. He's still not an originalist or a strict constructionist but a living document type —meaning you can bend it to the outcome one wants. This tells me why so many lawyers today don't understand the Constitution. I think it was Constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes who criticized how lawyers are being trained today. He also knows a lot of history. I've seen other scholars call him a nut job on the Constitution. Definitely a flamin' progressive.
[Reply]
DaneMcCloud 06:36 PM 01-13-2021
The only possible way that Trump can avoid a trial in the Senate is to resign before January 20th.

If he resigns, he can't be tried because he resigned but if he doesn't resign, he can be found guilty.

The resolution to remove him from any future public office can only occur if he's found guilty first because that's a separate vote that's predicated on the guilty/not guilty vote.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:40 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
The only possible way that Trump can avoid a trial in the Senate is to resign before January 20th.

If he resigns, he can't be tried because he resigned but if he doesn't resign, he can be found guilty.

The resolution to remove him from any future public office can only occur if he's found guilty first because that's a separate vote that's predicated on the guilty/not guilty vote.
They were saying on the news today that theyíve tried other officials after they resigned.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:42 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
The only possible way that Trump can avoid a trial in the Senate is to resign before January 20th.
Mitch has already said he will not hold an emergency session of the Senate and says he's need 100 senators to agree, and wouldn't be able to happen before Biden is inaugurated.
[Reply]
DaneMcCloud 06:45 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
They were saying on the news today that they’ve tried other officials after they resigned.
In the case of William Belknap, you're right, as the Senate held a special vote as to whether or not to impeach him, even though he resigned. A trial was held but there weren't enough votes to convict.

I just read that there were a few others in which the Senate either tried to hold trials or just dismissed them altogether because there was no point.

I guess this is pretty confusing because there's no real precedent.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:49 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
In the case of William Belknap, you're right, as the Senate held a special vote as to whether or not to impeach him, even though he resigned. A trial was held but there weren't enough votes to convict.

Do you know of any others?
I donít know of any.. They were interviewing a constitutional law professor.

She said itís still an open question, even though itís been done.
[Reply]
DaneMcCloud 06:52 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
I donít know of any.. They were interviewing a constitutional law professor.

She said itís still an open question, even though itís been done.
Yeah, I think there's no doubt that if the Senate moves forward, this will likely end up at SCOTUS because there's just not much precedent.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:54 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
In the case of William Belknap, you're right, as the Senate held a special vote as to whether or not to impeach him, even though he resigned. A trial was held but there weren't enough votes to convict.

I just read that there were a few others in which the Senate either tried to hold trials or just dismissed them altogether because there was no point.

I guess this is pretty confusing because there's no real precident.
Right. I think at the end of the day, from a practical point of view, no one can stop them from doing it. If they take the additional step of preventing him from holding public office again, it would likely never be challenged. I have a feeling after the last week, heís probably lost his taste for it.

He came across as a school kid being forced to apologize in his statement today.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:56 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
I don’t know of any.. They were interviewing a constitutional law professor.

She said it’s still an open question, even though it’s been done.
I say it's not an open question because the words are pretty darn clear. You're just listening to media who want to twist the document into pretzles. I bet it's a left wing professor. I noticed you didn't name him or her. Or should that be an "it."

Higher education is where such professors teach because they like to inculcate leftism in their students.

I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS refuses to hear it.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:59 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
Yeah, I think there's no doubt that if the Senate moves forward, this will likely end up at SCOTUS because there's just not much precedent.
I would guess not. The USSC generally likes to stay out of this kind of thing - intervening in the other branches of government. Sometimes it canít be avoided, but I think they would stay out of this one.

The stakes are fairly low, from a legal perspective. At the end of the day, itís really a message being sent by Congress, without any real world consequences.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 07:03 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I say it's not an open question because the words are pretty darn clear. You're just listening to media who want to twist the document into pretzles. I bet it's a left wing professor. I noticed you didn't name him or her. Or should that be an "it."

Higher education is where such professors teach because they like to inculcate leftism in their students.

I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS refuses to hear it.
Not sure what you mean by SCOTUS refuses to hear it. Are you saying Roberts would refuse to preside? I doubt that.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:04 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
The stakes are fairly low, from a legal perspective. At the end of the day, it’s really a message being sent by Congress, without any real world consequences.
It's definitely a message, but it has real world consequences because it is the opening salvo against RedState America, which even most Georgians still are despite that recent election. There are even honest Democrats that think it was stolen, like Cynthia McKinney, who was the victim of a stolen election herself as she claims.

If half of the US voting population thinks Trump was the victim of a stolen election, then impeaching him just pours salt on the wound and further enrages 75 million or more Trump voters, and those honest Democrats, who regard the election as stolen.

So the consequence is that Biden will not achieve unity. In fact it just does more to stoke another civil war as the ten years before that the political environment were like this.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 07:26 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
It's definitely a message, but it has real world consequences because it is the opening salvo against RedState America, which even most Georgians still are despite that recent election. There are even honest Democrats that think it was stolen, like Cynthia McKinney, who was the victim of a stolen election herself as she claims.

If half of the US voting population thinks Trump was the victim of a stolen election, then impeaching him just pours salt on the wound and further enrages 75 million or more Trump voters, and those honest Democrats, who regard the election as stolen.

So the consequence is that Biden will not achieve unity. In fact it just does more to stoke another civil war as the ten years before that the political environment were like this.
It certainly has the potential to make things worse.

But I meant real world consequences for Trump.
[Reply]
DaneMcCloud 07:42 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
I would guess not. The USSC generally likes to stay out of this kind of thing - intervening in the other branches of government. Sometimes it can’t be avoided, but I think they would stay out of this one.

The stakes are fairly low, from a legal perspective. At the end of the day, it’s really a message being sent by Congress, without any real world consequences.
Oh, my apologies because I should have been clearer but I just meant that they'd ask SCOTUS to take on the case and provide a ruling.
[Reply]
tatorhog 07:51 PM 01-13-2021
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
He was impeached today and he is still in office.
That wasnít the question, but Iím not surprised you, of the ones that answered, missed the mark entirely.
[Reply]
Page 5 of 8
< 12345 678 >
Up