- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jim Jordan: "This is Not Constitutional."
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:48 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:48 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The trial is now taking place.
I thought y'all said "this isn't a trial".
2
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:48 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
The Constitution states the qualifications for running for federal offices in the Congress and for the Presidency. If you meet those qualifications, you can run.
Still not a right.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:49 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I just wish y’all wouldn’t subscribe to low-IQ arguments regarding the Constitution like the ones espoused in this thread and others on this topic.
It’s not difficult to be nuanced and honest about a process that you ultimately disagree with.
Which ones, specifically, are you referring to? Even established constitutional lawyers disagree, usually arguing their political preference instead of the law.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:49 am to auggie
quote:
thought y'all said "this isn't a trial".
Who is y’all? I have never once said that.
It’s not a legal trial per se, but it’s a trial in that both sides make arguments and there is a fact finder.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:50 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Still not a right.
Yes, it is. The federal government cannot prevent a person from running for federal office outside of an impeachment/trial/conviction if they meet the Constitutional qualifications. That power is NOT vested in the Federal government anywhere. Ergo, it's a right.
You don't have the right to win.
You don't have the right to be on a state ballot.
You don't have the right to be on a political party ticket.
But you can still run.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:51 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:50 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
Which ones, specifically, are you referring to?
Your nonsense deprivation of rights arguments for starters.
As well as any argument centered on the Chief Justice not presiding, or those regarding the impeachment of private citizens.
All of it is mouth breathing nonsense.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:51 am to Indefatigable
quote:
That’ from a very short sentence in the Constitution. It is very clear
You are applying two completely separate meanings to the exact same term in an Article of the Constitution. I don't know how else to explain that that is inconsistent.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:51 am to BiteMe2020
There is not a right to run for office. It’s a privilege.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:51 am to Stan Switek
quote:
You are applying two completely separate meanings to the exact same term in an Article of the Constitution. I don't know how else to explain that that is inconsistent.
And what term is that, exactly?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:53 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Your nonsense deprivation of rights arguments for starters.
You've still not made your case for that, other than simply dismissing it with a bald assertion fallacy, lol.
quote:
As well as any argument centered on the Chief Justice not presiding, or those regarding the impeachment of private citizens.
Again, dismissing the argument via fiat is a logical fallacy on your part.
quote:
All of it is mouth breathing nonsense.
The Senate could convict Trump and pass a resolution stating that he cannot run again. Then, if Trump decided to run again in 2024 (I don't think he will) - and the government tried to prevent this pursuant to the Senate action, Trump could sue and the courts would have to decide.
Trump would have excellent arguments.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:54 am to cave canem
quote:
sad to think he was once considered an honorable man.
The guy who ignored his athletes being sexually molested for more than a decade was considered an honorable man?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:54 am to Indefatigable
quote:
And what term is that, exactly?
President
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:55 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
You've still not made your case for that, other than simply dismissing it with a bald assertion fallacy, lol.
quote:
Again, dismissing the argument via fiat is a logical fallacy on your part.
I’m correct on both points. I don’t care enough to type paragraphs explaining this crap to you.
quote:
Trump would have excellent arguments.
Nope. Dismissed easily at all stages. No court will touch Congress’ impeachment determinations
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:56 am to Indefatigable
quote:
There is not a right to run for office. It’s a privilege.
It is? Just point to the Constitution where it says it's not a right, but merely a privilege, lol.
I'll wait. Either way, Due Process does not only apply to "rights" - as I mentioned in my previous post. If it is indeed a "privilege", then that would be depriving a person of a liberty and you would need to adhere to Due Process to do so. Due process revolves around stripping a person of "life, liberty, or property" - not only "rights" outlined in the Bill of Rights.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:58 am to Stan Switek
quote:
President
Ok, I haven’t even once interpreted the word President. The operative word in the phrase is “the”. When “THE” President is tried, the CJ shall preside.
It does not say “when the President is impeach”, it does not say “when a president is impeached”, it does not say “when a person is impeached as president” and it does not say “when a person is tried as president”
It says when THE president is tried. The President is not being tried.
How is this such a difficult thing to grasp?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:59 am to Arksulli
quote:
The guy who ignored his athletes being sexually molested for more than a decade was considered an honorable man?
Moderate Arksulli
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:59 am to auggie
quote:The impeachment provisions make reference to being “tried,” but it is not a JUDICIAL proceeding. Big difference.quote:I thought y'all said "this isn't a trial".
The trial is now taking place.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:03 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:59 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Ok, I haven’t even once interpreted the word President. The operative word in the phrase is “the”. When “THE” President is tried, the CJ shall preside.
It does not say “when the President is impeach”, it does not say “when a president is impeached”, it does not say “when a person is impeached as president” and it does not say “when a person is tried as president”
It says when THE president is tried. The President is not being tried.
How is this such a difficult thing to grasp?
Correct. The President is not being tried, and the Constitution simply does NOT contemplate former Presidents being removed from office, lol. Nor the revocation of their ability to run again.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It is not a judicial proceeding. Big difference.
A big difference, but not a relevant one.
And the Constitution does say "try" so yes, it is a trial. Different courts have different rules. What's your point?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:01 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I’m correct on both points. I don’t care enough to type paragraphs explaining this crap to you.
Another bald assertion, with no supporting logic. Okay.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News