I was going to post the same thing as you in longer form. Might as well just like your post.
Declaring Impeachment unconstitutional.
- Thread starter Gmoney4WW
- Start date
We live under the rule of a representative democracy. The people who we elect represent our voice. When they no longer represent our voice, the constitution has built in mechanisms to remove those elected officials. When the constitution is amended and we are no longer able to exercise those authorities than you would be correct.
I'm no HC fan, but I remember hearing that speech and wondering why everyone was upset. She said something to the effect of, "half of Trump supporters are good people just voting for who they feel like they have to vote for, and the other half are in a basket of deplorables." It was just a clumsy shorthand way of saying "voting for Trump doesn't automatically make you a bad person."
Last edited:
Wrong! You don’t have to wait for a general election to remove someone from office!
This isn't really correct. Your voice is your decision to pick one candidate or another. When you vote for Trump over Biden and decide that overall Trump's policies and governance will be better than Biden's, that's your voice. He doesn't become a mouthpiece for your will. Senators and Reps are not your parrot either. If 51% of California wants to imprison Donald Trump, it is not Diane Feinstein's job to cook up a way to do that. It is her job to make the best choice.
At the highest levels you are correct however I bring you back to the original conversation of impeachment. We control the people we elected to represent our state. If the majority of people in the state tell the elected representative to jump 20 times, they either do it or get replaced. We the people have become lazy to follow through that process. California is exercising their rights under the constitution to remove their Governor. We also have the option of Quo Warranto. It is our constitutional right under the representative democracy system we live under to remove those representatives who no longer represent our voices.
This isn't what I take issue with though. Constituents certainly can replace them for not doing exactly what they want, but doing exactly what they want is not their job. If it were, congress wouldn't even be necessary.
When your representative stops representing your voice, the constitution provides several methods to remedy that situation. It is your constitutional right! They serve you. If they are so patriotic, than if they feel that their constituents voice no longer aligns with their moral compass, they should immediately resign their position.
You have to have something more than I disagree with their opinions to impeach them. Just like you have to have legal reasons for Quo Warranto. There is expulsion, by the house or senate, but that requires more justification than I disagree with them as well. None of that can be done by the electorate.
There is no way to recall a member of Congress before their term ends, nor has there ever been. No Senator or member of the House of Representatives has been recalled by the electorate. You can recall state congressmen in some states, but not the US congress. There is no recall election allowed simply because you disagree with a US congress person's decisions.
But every person on this board knows this except the holy trinity.
As I said before, General Election.
There is no way to recall a member of Congress before their term ends, nor has there ever been. No Senator or member of the House of Representatives has been recalled by the electorate. You can recall state congressmen in some states, but not the US congress. There is no recall election allowed simply because you disagree with a US congress person's decisions.
But every person on this board knows this except the holy trinity.
As I said before, General Election.
The people of Wyoming are putting on a course of how you work legally within the boundaries of the system to ensure those representatives are representing the majority voice of their constituents.
The implication you make that you have to be associated with radical criminals to exercise your constitutional rights is sad. We have given the power to people who do nothing for us! Exercising your constitutional rights to legally replace those politicians in your state who don’t represent your interest should happen more often than it has. How long did it take Cali to finally wake up? How many people lost their jobs? How many people moved out of the state? People need to wake up and be vigilant and participate at the local level.
I am glad you changed your opinion of the Constitution. Not long ago you felt it was antiquated (my term, not yours). Now you quote the part you like.
Oh, I do think it’s antiquated. The impeachment process is a joke and doesn’t function at all how Madison intended it to.I am glad you changed your opinion of the Constitution. Not long ago you felt it was antiquated (my term, not yours). Now you quote the part you like.
Nothing to see here!
pandemic.warroom.org
Former FBI Station Chief Arrested for Jan. 6 Conspiracy
Eric Greitens breaks down the news about Thomas Caldwell, who was arrested for conspiracy on Jan. 6, and is also
pandemic.warroom.org
Why isn’t Roberts presiding over this trial as provided for in the constitution?
As far as the final vote, I believe there are enough Senators who believe the constitution does not provide for the impeachment of a now private citizen and those who will support Trump to the end to acquit him.
Turned the trial on for a bit today. Saw newspaper articles being used as evidence. Quickly turned it off.
As far as the final vote, I believe there are enough Senators who believe the constitution does not provide for the impeachment of a now private citizen and those who will support Trump to the end to acquit him.
Turned the trial on for a bit today. Saw newspaper articles being used as evidence. Quickly turned it off
.
Last edited:
When the Senate’s impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins next month, one familiar face from Trump’s first impeachment won’t be there: Chief Justice John Roberts. Instead, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who serves as the president pro tempore of the Senate, will preside over the trial.Why isn’t Roberts presiding over this trial as provided for in the constitution?
As far as the final vote, I believe there are enough Senators who believe the constitution does not provide for the impeachment of a now private citizen and those who will support Trump to the end to acquit him.
Turned the trial on for a bit today. Saw newspaper articles being used as evidence. Quickly turned it off
As Frank Bowman explained in an article for SCOTUSblog before Trump’s first impeachment trial last year, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside over an impeachment trial for the president. But Trump, who was impeached on Jan. 13 for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer, is no longer the president.
In a statement released on Monday, Leahy wrote that the president pro tempore “has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents.” Leahy pledged to adhere to his “constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness.”
The Supreme Court had no comment regarding Roberts’ absence from the second impeachment trial.
As far as a trial goes... this is the only case I can ever think of where both the victims of the offense and a large number of the co-conspirators in the plot are both allowed to be both jurors and prosecutors simultaneously.
When was the last time a juror was allowed to speak to the media about how guilty or not guilty he thought the defendant was before the trial even began or during the trial? When was the last time a juror was allowed to request that evidence be dismissed from the case entirely?
It’s a waste of tax payers money. Having a trial when you know the jury will be hung is stupidity. The Dems don’t get a moral victory for virtue signaling. We should be trying some of the Dems for hiding behind the shield of social justice. While we are at it, can we impeach 44? Just asking for a friend 😂
It is a shameless demonstration of power hungry treasonous democrats conspiring with Twitter to impeach a “former” duly elected President.
THEY COMMITTED A CRIME AND THE CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THAT CRIME IS TWITTER!
An impeachment trial is a „judicial process. People take oaths when testifying and evidence is presented. False statement are considered a crime and therefore FABRICATED EVIDENCE is a crime in itself!
According to 25 CFR § 11.440 – Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence:
§ 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
A person commits a misdemeanor if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he or she:
(a) Alters, destroys, conceals, or removes any record, document or thing with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation; or
(b) Makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false and with the purpose to mislead a public servant who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation.
This is another Dem led clown 🤡 show
To my knowledge the President pro tempore has never presided over the impeachment of a private citizen. Assume the Vermont Senator addressed this as well since he is going off precedent?
To your “when was the last time” questions. You need to quit thinking about this as a criminal or even civil trial. It’s not. The rules of civil procedure don’t apply. Not do the rules of evidence. Hell...the judge is an elected official of the opposition party 😂😂
Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense imo. I could see the actual question of whether the constitution allows the impeachment of a private citizen working its way to the Supremes. Would be an interesting argument.
Well, it’s ridiculous. It’s like if you were presiding over a murder trial and half the jurors were the defendant’s buddies and they were openly reading newspapers while the prosecution was speaking.
As far as trying a “private citizen” goes. There is historic precedence for this action. During the adoption of the Us constitution the British Parliament (which served as the template for our impeachment procedure because of debate at the convention) was busy impeaching a former governor of India, Warren Hastings, who had left office two years prior to the proceedings. Moreover, in the US, we’ve tried a U.S. Grant Secretary of War even though he resigned office before being impeached.
Last edited:
The punishment for insurrection is as follows:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
If Trump were guilty of insurrection, why hasn’t he been arrested or fined per the law?
Or if half the jurors along with the judge were family members of the victims.
.
I don’t disagree. It’s ridiculous on both sides. It just makes blatantly obvious how massive the flaws / loopholes are that exist in our constitution.Or if half the jurors along with the judge were family members of the victims.
Lol the Dems chose this method! The constitution has nothing to do with this argument. If he was guilty of insurrection he should be fined or jailed per our laws. The Dems chose to go after him this way because they are scared to death that the President who received the most votes in US history will somehow lose to Trump in 4 yrs. According to NYT article it sure seems like Selected over Elected. Predictive analysis says that after Trump is acquitted again, there will be an event to shift focus away from the trial. Wait for it!
Last edited:
