- 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 4:50 pm to cave canem
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:50 pm to cave canem
quote:
Just keep bleating, the shepherd will be along to shear you soon enough.
Yeah, what was I thinking when I supported that orange bastard? Son-of-a-bitch had the audacity to create the best economy we've ever seen by cutting taxes and business regulations, creating economic empowerment zones in urban areas, implementing an aggressive drilling policy that made us energy independent, and re-doing trade deals that were more favorable to America. Not to mention enforcing border security that kept more jobs in the hands of LEGAL American citizens.
But, wait. The pompous jackass then had to go and rub it in our faces by making that economy SO DAMN GOOD that it resulted in the lowest unemployment rate EVER for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.
The nerve of that arrogant bastard! What was I ever thinking by supporting him? Hell, I should've known better than to support him when intellectuals like Kathy Griffin, Alyssa Milano, and Snoop Dogshit kept telling me that he was a terrible man.
0
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:52 pm to cave canem
quote:
That may be true but even I know due process does not apply and this is not unconstitutional in any way.
You need to wave your arms and jump up and down faster to make your clueless opinion have the illusion of substance.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 5:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The letter contains many individuals who I know and respect. I encourage you to read their case for such retroactive impeachment. 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.
None of that reads like something that is objective. Only what they “think to be the case.”
Posted on 2/10/21 at 5:22 pm to Jyrdis
quote:
The letter contains many individuals who I know and respect. I encourage you to read their case for such retroactive impeachment. 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
You obviously have as little a clue about reality than the list of characters you gladly embrace. The Constitution is not only the document itself. SCOTUS studies the Federalist papers that detail how these theoretical exercises are supposed to work. The Framers who expanded the text of the Constitution with the Federalist Papers explore exactly what takes place when a rouge portion of Congress chases a pipe dream.
Your clown show intentionally avoid the Federalist Papers.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 5:24 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
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.
Impeachment is not the trial. Further, neither example were of Presidents.
So, no, I'm not illiterate. Further, in both cases, it seems that the confusion about the legitimacy of the impeachment process in each case was in doubt, and certainly neither case sets a precise precedent.
Further, in neither case was the evidence so laughable as is with Democrats' boner for Trump as to give away ahead of time the entire appearance of legitimacy.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 5:34 pm to BiteMe2020
maybe you should ask trump you folks believe everything he says. he was sill president when he was impeached so it follows the constitution.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 5:42 pm to 56lsu
quote:
56lsu
When we vote for a senile old crook and a cackling, wide-spreading whore, get back to me you stupid asshat.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 5:47 pm to KCT
melt trumpkin.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
“The President” refers only to the current acting POTUS.
Can you show me one case that confirms this?
ETA. Apparently Cornell Law disagrees with some loud mouth know it all posters
The impeachment provisions of the Constitution839 were derived from English practice, but there are important differences. In England, impeachment had a far broader scope. While impeachment was a device to remove from office one who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown, it could be used against anyone—office holder or not—and was penal in nature, with possible penalties of fines, imprisonment, or even death.840 By contrast, the American impeachment process is remedial, not penal: it is limited to office holders, and judgments are limited to no more than removal from office and disqualification to hold future office.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 7:46 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:46 pm to cave canem
I present my argument for an "ignore" feature:
I rest my case.
quote:
cave canem
I rest my case.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:47 pm to dafif
quote:Dershowitz and Turley both agree with this proposition, as well. As to Constitutional interpretation, that should be enough for any sane person.quote:Can you show me one case that confirms this?
”The President” refers only to the current acting POTUS.
EDIT
In response to your edit, that interesting historical tidbit on the English common law has zero bearing upon the words “the President” in our written Constitution.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:53 pm to KCT
Hey hey hey, that’s Mrs crack whore to you!
Posted on 2/10/21 at 7:54 pm to LSUBALLER
Harris def has peanut butter legs. Easy to spread.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Dershowitz and Turley both agree with this proposition, as well. As to Constitutional interpretation, that should be enough for any sane person.
EDIT
In response to your edit, that interesting historical tidbit on the English common law has zero bearing upon the words “the President” in our written Constitution.
Thanks for confirming I’m right by your non-response response. There are zero cases confirming and Cornell law disagrees with your analysis... but we all knew that already.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:07 pm to dafif
Hank is a fricking moron.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:12 pm to the808bass
Yes... yes he is as has been proven over and over.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:15 pm to BiteMe2020
Hi Boared!
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:20 pm to dafif
quote:Hank has more brain power during a REM cycle than the two of you combined on your best day.quote:Yes... yes he is as has been proven over and over.
Hank is a fricking moron.
But you think he is a Lib, so that makes him a moron. Sad.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:31 pm to AggieHank86
Keep patting yourself on the back. Am sure it makes you feel good. Must hurt to have people make a fool of you
Posted on 2/11/21 at 12:49 am to ZappBrannigan
What the hell are you rambling on about?
Both men were far more guilty of charges than Trump, and yet neither was found guilty, SPECIFICALLY because enough Senators felt they had no jurisdiction over a non office holder
And heres a little nugget of wisdom for you
Both men were far more guilty of charges than Trump, and yet neither was found guilty, SPECIFICALLY because enough Senators felt they had no jurisdiction over a non office holder
quote:
Finally, on August 1, 1876, the Senate voted. It would have taken forty votes at the time to reach the two-thirds necessary. Only thirty-five voted to convict. Most of the twenty-five senators who voted against conviction did so based on concerns about trying a former office holder.
quote:
On January 11, 1799, the Senate approved the following resolution by a vote of 14–11:
The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.
And heres a little nugget of wisdom for you
quote:
in 1926 and again in 2009 — the House impeached federal judges who resigned before their trial. In both cases, the Senate opted not to deal with the matter.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News