I'm not yet convinced the Senate even has the authority to remove former presidents from an office they no longer hold. Think of the ramifications for Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Barak Obama, James Buchanan!
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
That is a valid point. We're exploring new ground here. My guess is the trial will proceed and it will be challenged in court, either immediately upon its beginning or after its completion. The challenge may be made by Trump or others. We'll have to see how this plays out.
Another item of interest regarding the Senate side of the second Trump impeachment is Trump's legal team. It's nothing like the one he had before, if he has a team at all. An official White House counsel is no longer available to him after 1/20. Another part may be the report that Trump just told his staff to stop paying Rudy Giuliani's legal fees. Trump is known for stiffing his vendors. Lawyers may be taking note.
Lawyers are taking note because of cancel culture
Either way, it leaves Trump in a bind.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Highly unlikely - given that SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993) that it is not for courts to review the propriety of impeachments.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing for the Court observed that no evidence indicates the Founders even contemplated "the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers."
It was an unanimous opinion.
See: Nixon v. United States
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The Senate, as a body, has previously concluded that they do have the authority ... but the way the question is framed above is somewhat flawed.
Conviction after Impeachment deals with (at least) two distinct parts or issues:
1. Removal from office.
2. Denial of the ability to hold any office in the future.
Number 1 above is obviously moot ... if the person in question has already left office when conviction occurs.
Number 2, well not so much ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Any thoughts on Trump trying to cancel Rudy ... by not paying his bills for Rudy's legal representation ?
I believe in paying bills. But I have no way of knowing if this story by the Washington Post is accurate.
I didn't actually ask a question, I just made a comment.
[Executive Branch] Article II, Section 4 states:
"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."
So if the Senate convicts, removal from office is automatic, not an option.
[Legislative Branch] Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 states:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: [snipped part that doesn't apply to impeachment]"
So after conviction, the only thing the Senate can consider is a disqualification for holding any office.
So I'm still yet to be convinced that the Senate even has the authority to remove former presidents from an office they no longer hold. If they don't have the Constitutional authority to convict and remove someone from an office they no longer hold, they certainly wouldn't have the authority to impose such a disqualification from holding future office onto a private citizen.
Only 20 officials, including only three presidents, have been impeached by the House in all of American history. And, of these 20 impeached individuals, only 11 were either convicted by the Senate or resigned their office after they were impeached but before their Senate trial.
And only in 3 cases did the Senate go ahead and take the step of permanently barring convicted impeached officials from holding future office (they were federal judges in all 3 cases).
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The question was inherent in your stated position ("I'm not yet convinced ..." hence an uncertainty ... aka a question ... in your mind at least) ... so not really necessary for you to frame or state it in the form of an actual question, stated explicitly.
See the case of impeachment of disgraced Secretary of War William Belknap, in 1876, where he sought to avoid impeachment, conviction, and further disqualification from holding office ... by resigning just minutes before his impeachment vote in the House. The House went ahead and voted to impeach him anyways (after his resignation) and the Senate took up the trial of that Impeachment.
Luckily for him, he narrowly escaped a guilty verdict ... because some Senators ultimately voted to acquit.
But the Senate, as a body, concluded that it had the power to try former officers when they adopted a resolution that Belknap could be tried “for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office” ...
Chapter 77 - The Impeachment and Trial of William W. Belknap
And since SCOTUS says impeachments are non-justiciable, it would seem the issue is settled, in terms of the law.
So we have the law (via plain text of the Constitution, which you quoted), a SCOTUS ruling in terms of a legal precedent on the general matter (Jurisdiction and Authority of the Senate as trier of Impeachments) and all that remains at this point is whether enough members Senate have the will to act.
I wouldn't want to bet on which way it will go, but I am forever hopeful.
As for the other items you mention (how many got impeached, how many were barred from holding office, etc.), they are largely irrelevant to the question of whether the Senate has the Jurisdiction and Authority.
It does.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Here is on of those infiltrators at the protest last week. Not a Trump supporter. Looks to be preplanned. Goes against the phony narrative that Trump incited this.
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/caught-video-antifa-protester-john-sullivan-brags-posing-trump-supporter-breaking-window-us-capitol-building-riots/
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/caught-video-antifa-protester-john-sullivan-brags-posing-trump-supporter-breaking-window-us-capitol-building-riots/
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
We should be under no illusions what transpired on January 6th:
An unruly mob - incited by our current President - illegally breached a secure location with violence - our Nation's Capitol Building.
In the process of doing this, one individual, dragged a Capitol Police officer away from the building as he was defending it, and another individual attempted to drag that officer down the steps, and then some number of individuals proceeded to beat him with a baton and an American flag and Lord knows what else while he was on the ground ... all while the crowd chanted "USA ! USA ! USA !" and slightly later singing the Star-Spangled Banner.
One individual removed the officer's helmet and put it on ... leaving the officer unprotected, at the mercy of the mob.
Some portion of that mob were captured on video chanting for the Vice-President to be hung. Someone even hung a noose on, I believe, a scaffold at the Capitol Building.
Others who entered the Capitol were wearing sidearms (a felony) and appeared to be equipped to take hostages - to what end, one can only imagine (mass executions ?)
As a consequence of the above and other actions, ultimately 5 people died, one of them apparently being a murder (Capitol Police officer) ... another being a suicide (another Capitol Police officer)
While I will allow that some were at the rally and were peaceful, the individuals who proceeded to the Capitol and then entered it violated Federal law. Any of them that committed felonies will lose their right to own a firearm ... for life ... if they are convicted.
And among that lot there were domestic terrorists ... intent on fomenting a rebellion, committing sedition against a duly-constituted body of the United States Government ... which was engaged in doing their duty under, and as specifically called for by, the Constitution.
There are still ongoing, serious threats of violence by these domestic terrorists.
Given that, it will be real interesting to see, if any "law and order" types will call for these terrorists to undergo "enhanced interrogation" - or as I like to more accurately call it: torture ... so that any plans for mass assassinations and executions can be prevented.
No one should ever forget what happened on January 6th (or call it something other than exactly what it was) ... nor forget who was ultimately responsible for it.
An unruly mob - incited by our current President - illegally breached a secure location with violence - our Nation's Capitol Building.
In the process of doing this, one individual, dragged a Capitol Police officer away from the building as he was defending it, and another individual attempted to drag that officer down the steps, and then some number of individuals proceeded to beat him with a baton and an American flag and Lord knows what else while he was on the ground ... all while the crowd chanted "USA ! USA ! USA !" and slightly later singing the Star-Spangled Banner.
One individual removed the officer's helmet and put it on ... leaving the officer unprotected, at the mercy of the mob.
Some portion of that mob were captured on video chanting for the Vice-President to be hung. Someone even hung a noose on, I believe, a scaffold at the Capitol Building.
Others who entered the Capitol were wearing sidearms (a felony) and appeared to be equipped to take hostages - to what end, one can only imagine (mass executions ?)
As a consequence of the above and other actions, ultimately 5 people died, one of them apparently being a murder (Capitol Police officer) ... another being a suicide (another Capitol Police officer)
While I will allow that some were at the rally and were peaceful, the individuals who proceeded to the Capitol and then entered it violated Federal law. Any of them that committed felonies will lose their right to own a firearm ... for life ... if they are convicted.
And among that lot there were domestic terrorists ... intent on fomenting a rebellion, committing sedition against a duly-constituted body of the United States Government ... which was engaged in doing their duty under, and as specifically called for by, the Constitution.
There are still ongoing, serious threats of violence by these domestic terrorists.
Given that, it will be real interesting to see, if any "law and order" types will call for these terrorists to undergo "enhanced interrogation" - or as I like to more accurately call it: torture ... so that any plans for mass assassinations and executions can be prevented.
No one should ever forget what happened on January 6th (or call it something other than exactly what it was) ... nor forget who was ultimately responsible for it.
Last edited:
Define "some".
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Either definition 1 or 2 at The Free Dictionary works for what I intended when I wrote it.
Some:
1. Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into the room. Would you like some sugar?
2. Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group: He likes some modern sculpture but not all.
Some:
1. Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into the room. Would you like some sugar?
2. Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group: He likes some modern sculpture but not all.
I can't believe after all that happened, there are some that still continue to excuse it as some grand conspiracy by the left. Get real already!
With that said, using the Gateway Pundit as a source? Smh
The Gateway Pundit - Wikipedia
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yes, they do.
He has been inciting violence ever since he took office.
People were warned, they chose to ignore the warnings.
Last edited: