ILikePie5

Nobody is stopping Chuck Schumer from taking a walk over to the FBI building. 

This is so funny the Constitutional gymnastics involved removing a government official who is also not a government official.

Scotus most definitely will put Congress in its place if they decide to break character while playing out the political theatre for retards.

the senate voted and confirmed they did have that power. 

your position is illogical. You think it is unconstitutional for an impeachment to happen without roberts. I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say your right. Then the senate and congress aren't doing anything wrong. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Roberts is the one violating the constitution.

here is a link. Congress may impeach any federal official, including a senator

true. And the senate did vote to remove blount. So what exactly is your issue?

so your argument is that the supreme court can block an impeachment and the only way to move forward with one impeachment is to have a different impeachment? That still gives the supreme court a veto on impeaching the president which is definitely not what the power of impeachment intended.

again, you make no sense. The trial is fine. If anyone has violated the constitution it is Roberts, not congress.

if they can prevent a veto by refusing to preside over it, then they have vetoed it. They do not have that power. If roberts refuses to preside, then someone else will need to do it. It is pretty straight forward.

so you are acknowledging that he was impeached after leaving office and that this is fine. So we are good to impeach trump too. It has been long established that impeachment can happen after someone leaves/is removed from office. 

so your objection is that Roberts isn't doing what he is constitutionally required to? Then take that up with roberts. If an impeachment couldn't move forward because the chief justice didn't feel like presiding, then that would give the chief justice a veto on all impeachments. Which is obviously not what the founding fathers intended. It would allow the judicial branch to prevent legislative branch from doing one of it's most important duties.

you are mistaken. The house has the power to impeach any federal official, including senators. The senate did vote to expel Blount. There was nothing unconstitutional about it. 

again, you are arguing that the courts can block an impeachment. But that is absolutely not what was intended for the power of impeachment. 

the point is that if you can't be impeached after leaving office, then there is no punishment for behavior done in the final days in office. The constitution intended for congress to have the absolute power of impeachment and gave them massive latitude in how to do it and when. What you are arguing is that there is a loophole where presidents are immune to the only punishment available for their actions.

i've already answered this. your point makes no sense. the courts cannot veto an impeachment. If you believe that the chief justice must oversee it, then you should be advocating for forcing him to preside, not for allowing him to veto an impeachment.

Founding fathers put this in the Constitution as an emergency tool, and not as a form of political punishment. SCOTUS will most likely back that up if it gets that far.

If the Congress was actually serious about the charges, the FBI would already have Trump in custody. The entire thing is just theatre for retards.

Correct. Belknap could have easily petitioned SCOTUS for a constitutional ruling if the impeachment trial affected him in any way after he resigned his commission as an officer. He just didn't give a fuck at that point since he was acquitted anyway.

Why would this be in question. People have already been impeached after leaving office, this isn't new. William Belknap was impeached after leaving office. William blount had his impeachment proceeding proceed even after he was expelled from the senate in order to bar him from holding office again.

Being a former official did not stop an impeachment proceeding in either of these cases. In fact, thomas jefferson presided over blount's impeachment case. 

So if your argument is that it is unconstitutional to impeach someone who has left office, or that it isn't what the founding fathers wanted, that is obviously not the case. 

And if your argument is just that we shouldn't do it, that's dumb too. If you can't impeach a former official, then every president from this point on is literally immune to punishment for whatever he does during his last month in office. He can just pardon himself and id he can't be impeached then there is no punishment for any behavior. So he could do literally anything and there is nothing anyone could do about it. That is a really stupid thing to want. 

So no matter what your objection is to impeaching a former official, I would argue it makes no sense and you are being extremely partisan. 

Did you see Sadolite's hilarious post about how the Senate voted to make impeachment constitutional? I had no idea amending the Constitution was so easy!

Scotus will have the last word if the Congress decides to push the issue.

The majority of experts say it is constitutional to have an impeachment trial after an official has left office, said Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University and leading impeachment scholar.

Kalt was part of a bipartisan group of roughly 150 lawyers who signed a letter arguing that Trump can still be convicted in an impeachment trial.

Signatories of the letter included the co-founder and other members of the Federalist Society, a legal group that wields influence in conservative politics.

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” said the Jan. 21 letter. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”

It’s not complicated... nothing about it says they can’t try him. You do know the president is not the only federal officer that can face impeachment and conviction right?

“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.”

So for this trial he is not the President, nor the Vice President, nor a Civil Officer of the United States. Therefore the trial is unconstitutional, nor really hard. It’s either he is the President and CJ Roberts has to preside or he’s not the President and can’t be convicted in the Senate.

The Trumpist ethos in a nutshell

Since the prosecution, the judge, and the jury are also the eye-witnesses and victims of the Republican assault on Democracy, as has been true of no other trial in American history, I see no impediment to the Senate's rapid verdict, had the Republican led Senate so wished.

Trump was President when H-Res 24 was written on Jan 11 and was President when the resolution passed on Jan 13.  The Republican led Senate decided to delay the trial until after Trump was removed from office, thereby removing the option of the Chief Justice presiding.  

Every DARTer who believes in free speech should be offended  by Greyparrot's lies told  to achieve an advantage that eludes him intellectually.  All DARTers should pressure Greyparrot to rescind his falsehoods and unblock me in favor of honest rhetorical engagement.  Until he does so, I would encourage all DARTers to ignore Greyparrot's contributions as tainted by false dealing and unsportsmanlike conduct.

Quickfires

Trump is not the sitting president, so Robert’s doesn’t have to preside. What is so difficult about that?

Allowing him to run and take office completely disregards the whole point of giving the senate the choice to disqualify him.

It’s cherry picking because it ignores everything else he said, and ignores the context in which he was saying it. If you’re just going to ignore that’s which is convenient for your argument then you aren’t making one. The Capitol rioters weren’t ignoring these facts.

Show me on rioter in Portland who was out there because some democrat told them to be. You’re completely disregarding the entire concept of incitement, which last I checked is the thing we’re actually debating.

Further: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."

If you insist, as above in my #1, that "shall have the power" means compelled to use power, must the Chief Justice preside in a Senate trial, or there is no trial? 

Consistency is a necessary component of interpretation, or did you think the Founders were that sloppy in cafeteria-style interpretation? 

I should have said, "circle-back to me." That's liberal dogwhistle for "don't bother"

If I understand the tax bill correctly, taxes were lowered for the majority of the population, but the tax cuts will expire for a majority of the beneficiaries in the future. They will not expire for corporations (at least pre-biden). Hence this is an example of republicans bending over for the rich at the expense of the less wealthy. 

What evidence supports this conclusion?

Why not leave the tax brackets as they are for corporations and lower them for the less wealthy?

What examples come to mind of democratic leadership doing similar things for the rich?

Why don't you check the states with the highest GDP to homeless ratios and see who has been in charge of those states for the past 50 years and get back to me on how that inequality is improving somehow.

The most obvious example that comes to mind of the republicans bending over for the rich was the 2017 tax bill. What are some examples from the democratic side that roughly equate to this?

Skepticism intensifies

One far more than the other

You mean the GoP?

Muslim Ban?, I got my own problems to deal with. there isn't a single Muslim on this planet that could give a shit about anybody's problems but their own Just like me.

I see, then consider yourself fortunate. Trump's America left many starving and struggling, especially if they reside(d) in ghettos.

So we agree that anybody who might call Trump's executive order a Muslim Ban would do so because the guy in your profile pic wanted it to be called that, wanted his ban to be thought of as a Muslim Ban,  and would have made an all Muslim Ban if the US Constitution did not protect our religious liberty from the likes of Trump.  Why are you lol'ing Intel for calling it  by the very name the people who promoted that ban wanted it to called?

He cancelled the Muslim ban. How is that not good

So you are Indian

Chill, we aren’t going for mafia any% speedrun.