- 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 11:29 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:29 am to AggieHank86
quote:
most of these pre-Trump posters simply CANNOT be dumb enough to believe the things they are arguing on the various procedural points.
It is entertaining to watch people making completely erroneous Constitutional arguments, just because they love Trump.
and
quote:
As I have said in every column and posting on this subject, this is a close question upon which people of good-faith can disagree.
are directly at odds with each other.
0
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:34 am to Stan Switek
quote:At this point, I simply must infer that you are only marginally-literate.quote:No they don't.
See my link above. Both Turley and Dershowitz agree with me and Indefatiguable that he is NOT required to preside.
quote:
Dershowitz:
The Constitution provides, “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” But there is just one president of the United States, and his name is Joseph Biden. Donald Trump is no longer the president anymore. So it would be improper, and in violation of the Constitution, to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over a trial in the Senate.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 11:38 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 11:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Both Turley and Dershowitz agree with me and Indefatiguable that he is NOT required to preside.
Because the word "shall" is flexible, lol. The Founders, by "shall" really meant "we recommend" or "we suggest" or "we strongly feel that...".
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 11:41 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:11 pm to cave canem
you are correct, but the trump folks are gonna rag on you cause one of them said it's un constitutional and you know they are never wrong.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:14 pm to the808bass
He's not an idiot!!!!!!!!!!
Just a plain old jackass, like any other Dem.
Just a plain old jackass, like any other Dem.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:16 pm to 56lsu
quote:
you are correct, but the trump folks are gonna rag on you cause one of them said it's un constitutional and you know they are never wrong.
Not one liberal on this board has presented any compelling arguments as to why this is legal. No in-depth discussion for the most part, from the left - just bald assertions.
Just like you just did. Some people actually require convincing, not merely cowing to people who make unsupported claims.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:33 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Because the word "shall" is flexible,
Yeah its not. Pretty determinant. Straight forward. You shall means you must.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:35 pm to vodkacop
quote:
Yeah its not. Pretty determinant. Straight forward. You shall means you must.
Liberals will tear apart the English language to gain power or steal your shite.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:36 pm to cave canem
quote:
Just keep bleating, the shepherd will be along to shear you soon enough.
Stop projecting already. BTW, you've got multiple threads needing you to show up and defend the Biden administration's terribly destructive policies being implemented as we sit here. You and your leftist ilk are curiously absent from those.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The Constitution provides, “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” But there is just one president of the United States, and his name is Joseph Biden. Donald Trump is no longer the president anymore. So it would be improper, and in violation of the Constitution, to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over a trial in the Senate.
So Dershowitz thinks there should be an Impeachment trial in the Senate? Oh right. He doesn’t.
How about Turley? Oh right. He doesn’t either. But division of assets Hank does think it’s an interesting question. Thanks for pontificating for us. We will give your opinion the appropriate weight it deserves.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:53 pm to cave canem
quote:
this is not unconstitutional in any way.
Trump is not the president. That is why Roberts isnt there
Trump is not a Senator. He is not and never has been. That is the only officeholder the Senate can take action against, per the Constitution.
So tell me where in that the Constitution the Senate is allowed to apply a ruling from one chamber that targets the liberty away from a single named citizen?
I'll hang up and listen
Posted on 2/10/21 at 1:11 pm to the808bass
quote:No, he does not.
So Dershowitz thinks there should be an Impeachment trial in the Senate?
Of course, neither the linked article NOR the quoted language address that issue. They address the distinct issue of whether CJOTUS is required to preside over the trial. On that point, Hank, Indefatiguable, Dershowitz and Turley are in unanimous agreement ... contrary to the TDPT intelligentsia.
DO try to focus, little grasshopper.
quote:No, he does not think that the Senate trial should proceed.
How about Turley?
Like me, he thinks it is a very close call on which informed and knowledgeable people can easily reach differing conclusions. He has said this very specifically, as I quoted above. I have said almost EXACTLY the same thing ... repeatedly.
But the GED intelligentsia here at TDPT thinks it is a clear and unambiguous matter. OK.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 1:45 pm to TheRouxGuru
And? Most of us know like 90% of what happens is political theater. This included. Just like the last time. But it doesn't matter as this is just a coda on a shitty administration. We've survived and flourished after worse and we'll do it again because your American identity should be more than a political party.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 1:47 pm to cave canem
quote:
Either he is woefully ignorant or he is trying to keep the wool pulled down tightly over his sheep's eyes.
How long did you believe the Russia collusion hoax? Tell the truth, now.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 1:48 pm to cave canem
quote:
cave canem
So this is your idiotic “ignore the forest through the trees” rant? You’re just small and lazy. You are pathetic.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 2:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But the GED intelligentsia here at TDPT thinks it is a clear and unambiguous matter. OK.
But it is
Two people have been impeached, after they left office. Sen Blount (who as a Senator was expelled). In the end, they voted to stop an impeachment trial.
Sec of War Belknap was acquitted by 23 Senators who specifically stated the Senate had no authority over a private citizen
2 cases, 2 offices. 2 men, guilty as Hell. Same result. Clear, unambiguous precedent.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:00 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.
This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”
The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.
On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.
quote:
The Senate's actions on July 8 were actually contradictory: while attempting to ensure that Blount would be present at his impeachment trial, it simultaneously declared him already guilty when it voted to expel him. In the succeeding months, the Senate unsuccessfully sought to take custody of Blount and return him to the capital. Although Blount graciously received the acting Senate sergeant at arms at his home, the unrepentant Tennessean's supporters and state authorities warned the official to make no attempt to remove their friend.
Despite Blount's absence, his impeachment trial began in the Senate on December 17, 1798, and quickly focused on the Senate's right to try an expelled senator. In a narrow vote, the Senate defeated a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer. In this vote, the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a "civil office" also ceased to be impeachable.
Both Republicans and Federalists found it awkward to take political advantage of the Blount case. Federalist proponents of impeachment were in the uncomfortable position of supporting a House move to impeach a senator, thus compromising the Senate’s independence of the lower chamber. Republican supporters of Blount, on the other hand, faced the double dilemma of defending both the Federalist Senate and the treasonous Tennessean who had sought to benefit Great Britain, the nation the Federalists were often accused of favoring.
As for Blount, his Washington difficulties had no adverse effect on his popularity in Tennessee. Shortly after his return home, Blount won a seat in the state senate, became speaker of that body, and continued to serve there until his death in 1800.
Neither is as you tried to describe or precedent to really forecast with other than Trump's only aid here is how much some GOP or still riding his tails while the rubes still pay attention.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:04 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:Yeah, I started to correct that ridiculous post, but then I saw its source and realized that any such effort would be completely pointless.
ZappBrannigan
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:15 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Neither is as you tried to describe or precedent to really forecast with other than Trump's only aid here is how much some GOP or still riding his tails while the rubes still pay attention.
Belknap resigned. He was not voted out of office at the end of his term. So this is not on point at all.
Blount, also, was not the President. So, with certain respect, also not entirely on point. Blount was also not out of office due to the expiration of a term when the trial was held.
Both of these cases are not clearly established law, and are controversial, to boot. In Blount, they voted that the Senate had no jurisdiction and the case was dismissed.
Correct my recollection or reading if either isn't correct.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:42 pm to BiteMe2020
Impeachment can happen against any Federal Officers. The Blount case tried to punt it with they already handled his expulsion. And was 14-11 in the Senate.
Belkap the House and Senate clearly agreed that being out of office/resigning is not protection from the proceedings.
Sooooooo I guess you're illiterate.
Belkap the House and Senate clearly agreed that being out of office/resigning is not protection from the proceedings.
Sooooooo I guess you're illiterate.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News