Has Anyone Ever Been Unimpeached?

Which would be nothing like a case going before a judge and being thrown out on the merits, which is what you claimed, and which is false.

Good thing that an impeachment decision in no way does that. I mean seriously wow was that a desperate reach

Blah, blah, blah, keep repeating it if it makes you feel better.

LOL! Project much?

You claimed they cannot undo the acts of the current congress when in fact they can.

Prove it. Show me evidence they can reverse an impeachment decision of a previous Congress. I’ll wait patiently as I know its going to take some time

Meh. I think three paddlings was enough.

Jasper?

1 Like

:flushed: :rofl:

1 Like

Yeah, that was not only put out there but repeatably defended as a real possibility
:man_facepalming:

1 Like

It is a realistic possibility. If they have the will there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.

As expected you’ve still failed in providing absolutely anything to prove that. Not even the partisan talking heads are floating it as a possibility much less legal scholars. Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted though

What is it I’m supposed to provide other than the simple fact that the Constitution gives sole authority to the house over impeachments?

They have that power if they choose to exercise it.

I’ve also pointed out that acts of a sitting congress do not bind the hands of a future congress which is long established in the courts.

And there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t. The problem is partly legal, partly political. Courts have long held that Congress cannot “bind” future Congresses—that is, it can’t force a future session of Congress to carry on its own policies. That practice, formally known as “legislative entrenchment,” is seen as privileging one group of lawmakers over another, “binding” future to the priorities set in the present. In the 1996 case U.S. v. Winstar Corp. , Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone, who said that “the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it’s [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament.” The principle is more complicated in the United States, where the government is bound by the Constitution and any private contracts into which it enters. But as a general rule, any Congress can reverse the decisions of any past Congress. For example, Bob Dole repealed future tax cuts in the 1980s.

Both are facts you simply cannot refute.

And in return I pointed out that a decision to impeach doesn’t bind a future Congress’s hands. Its cute that you think so though

You’ve been talking yourself into ever smaller more concentric circles and backed yourself into a corner.

If they choose to pass a motion declaring his impeachment null and void they can.

They have the power if they choose to exercise it.

No they can’t. That motion would be something other than an impeachment

Says the person who can’t come up with proof that their unsubstantiated opinion is possible

Yes they can and since there is no higher authority no one can say otherwise.

They have sole power over impeachments, undoing an impeachment is still within their purview and you can’t possibly show anything to the contrary.

I already have, the US Constitution and the SCOTUS which says the acts of one congress do not bind future congresses.

No, you really didn’t. Please explain how an irreversable decision to impeach a President would bind future Congresses. hint: it doesn’t