- 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 9:02 am to BiteMe2020
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:02 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
the Constitution simply does NOT contemplate former Presidents being removed from office,
So, in your opinion, the founders intended for federal officers to be able skirt the impeachment process by resignation or running out their term? You actually believe that was the intention.
FYI—the inspiration for our impeachment process as written into the constitution involved an official who had been out of office for two years at the time of his impeachment.
2
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:02 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It says when THE president is tried. The President is not being tried.
Exactly. If the THE president is not being tried, then there can be no impeachment since your reading means that Trump is a private citizen.
Article II Section IV
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.
Article I Section III
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:03 am to Indefatigable
quote:
FYI—the inspiration for our impeachment process as written into the constitution involved an official who had been out of office for two years at the time of his impeachment.
Cool. So impeaching a former official has happened at least once in the history of our country, right?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:06 am to the808bass
Nope. Hasn’t happened to my knowledge. Doesn’t mean it can’t. The person would clearly need to be impeached while still in office for it to actually go forward as things stand now.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:06 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:07 am to Stan Switek
quote:
If the THE president is not being tried, then there can be no impeachment since your reading means that Trump is a private citizen.
Yea, that’s nonsense. You’re conflating two separate phrases. Besides, they are not attempting to remove him from office. But you already know that.
For some reason nuance totally escapes 90% of this board on constitutional issues.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:08 am to Indefatigable
quote:
So, in your opinion, the founders intended for federal officers to be able skirt the impeachment process by resignation or running out their term? You actually believe that was the intention.
FYI—the inspiration for our impeachment process as written into the constitution involved an official who had been out of office for two years at the time of his impeachment.
The concept of impeachment was a holdover from British law and was not "inspired" by any one particular case, lol.
Nixon skirted impeachment by resigning.
Trump did not "skirt" the impeachment trial by resigning. He "lost" an election, presumably.
If you don't like the rule, then you have to conclude that Trump is being tried in his capacity AS PRESIDENT at the time he was impeached. In which case, the Chief Justice SHALL preside, lol.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:10 am to the808bass
quote:The incident he references preceded the Constitution. Or do you reference Belknap? He was impeached by the House soon after he tendered his resignation to Grant.
So impeaching a former official has happened at least once in the history of our country, right?
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:11 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:10 am to Indefatigable
quote:
You’re conflating two separate phrases.
I guess I'm comparing two phrases in the Constitution with the same term if that's what you mean. Then applying the same meaning to that term.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:11 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
The concept of impeachment was a holdover from British law and was not "inspired" by any one particular case, lol.
No shite. Go read the writings from the convention. A particular impeachment case was cited and mentioned repeatedly.
quote:
Nixon skirted impeachment by resigning.
Congress chose not to go forward with it. They could have, but made a political calculation not to considering Republicans held a majority in the senate.
quote:
If you don't like the rule, then you have to conclude that Trump is being tried in his capacity AS PRESIDENT at the time he was impeached. In which case, the Chief Justice SHALL preside, lol.
Nope. Plain language No if’s and stupid inferences.
“When the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”
Crystal clear. There is no further interpretation or drawing other intended meanings, or adding conditions like “impeached as President”.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:12 am to Indefatigable
quote:Too low.
For some reason nuance totally escapes 90% of this board on constitutional issues.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:12 am to Stan Switek
quote:
I guess I'm comparing two phrases in the Constitution with the same term if that's what you mean. Then applying the same meaning to that term.
This doesn’t even make sense to me. I have told you repeatedly that the operative word in the clause re: the Chief Justice is “the” and not “President”.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:14 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:14 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Nope. Plain language No if’s and stupid inferences.
“When the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”
Crystal clear. There is no further interpretation or drawing other intended meanings, or adding conditions like “impeached as President”.
Okay, the plain language also says you cannot try someone who is no longer President.
So, you, once again, are so stupid that you pick and choose how to read the plain language.
Trump isn't President, so he cannot be tried.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:15 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
the plain language also says you cannot try someone who is no longer President.
No, it literally does not. Your preferred interpretation is not what plain language means
quote:
Trump isn't President, so he cannot be tried.
Directly quote the portions of the constitution where the plain language states this.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:15 am to Indefatigable
quote:
This doesn’t even make sense to me. I have told you repeatedly that the operative word in the clause re: the Chief Justice is “the” and not “President”.
That doesn't make sense to me. "The" is used in both sections to describe who is to be impeached and when the CJ is to preside. There is nothing textually to indicate the the term "the" or "the President" has a different meaning in the two places.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:16 am to BiteMe2020
quote:(a) YES
you have to conclude (a) that Trump is being tried in his capacity AS PRESIDENT at the time he was impeached, (b) In which case, the Chief Justice SHALL preside
(b) No. That does NOT follow. Two distinct provisions.
quote:I will voice no opinion re pastries, but the Constitution is pretty damned clear on this point.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:17 am to Indefatigable
quote:
No, it literally does not. Your preferred interpretation is not what plain language means
Yes, lol, it does.
In cases where THE PRESIDENT is being tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.
Trying, once again, to have your cake and eat it, too.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 9:18 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:18 am to Stan Switek
quote:
That doesn't make sense to me. "The" is used in both sections to describe who is to be impeached and when the CJ is to preside. There is nothing textually to indicate the the term "the" or "the President" has a different meaning in the two places.
Jesus Christ. It doesn’t have different meanings. In both places “The President” refers only to the current acting POTUS.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:19 am to BiteMe2020
quote:
In cases where THE PRESIDENT is being tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.
Donald Trump is NOT the President
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:21 am to AggieHank86
quote:
(a) YES
(b) No. That does NOT follow. Two distinct provisions.
It follows from the plain language. On one hand, arguments for all of this sham state:
A non-President (who is also holding no other federal office) can be tried by the Senate, and
The Chief Justice shall preside over cases involving the President (but here you want this to mean the opposite of what you want it to mean above, lol).
Honestly, I tend to think that the Senate can legally go forward with the trial, since Trump was impeached DURING his presidency. However, they should follow the rules and have the Chief Justice preside.
Having the case presided over by a member of the jury wreaks of shite nonsense.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:21 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Jesus Christ. It doesn’t have different meanings. In both places “The President” refers only to the current acting POTUS.
If that is the case, then Trump can no longer be tried for impeachment, because he is no longer the (in your words) "current acting POTUS".
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News