Jezcoe
223
But Trump is now a civilian and is facing charges for what he did in the last days of his Presidency.
Others are facing grave legal jeopardy for helping him along in those actions.
Why should Trump have immunity?
You are not actually saying anything by saying it’s the authorized venue. It is the authorized venue for impeachment. It is not a condition precedent to prosecution and you still cannot point to where it says in the constitution that it is the sole or only or the body that is vested with for anything other than impeachment and the subsequent impeachment trial
johnwk2
225
". . . Impeachment for, and Conviction of, . . . "
The Senate is the Constitutionally authorized venue to determine guilt or innocence of an alleged crime committed by the President while in office.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
1 Like
With regards to his removal from office and nothing else.
Ignoring that part is weird
1 Like
johnwk2
228
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
Article Two of our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations entail required actions which no other public officer is entrusted with, and could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate to hold a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue is, by the terms of our Constitution, the United States Senate.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
JWK
When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.
Guilt or innocence for purposes of removal from office. It’s in the beginning of the sentence. “Shall be removed”
Also known as… insurrectionists.
So, you are intentionally being obtuse
Thank you, for the confirmation.
Your assertion that the Senate may only try the president “. . . for purposes of removal from office. . . .” is pure and unadulterated ■■■■■■■■■
Have you forgotten the Senate tried Trump for alleged criminal conduct after he was out of office?
Senate acquits Trump in 57-43 vote
Senate Republicans handed former President Trump his second impeachment acquittal on Saturday, clearing him of charges that he incited the mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Senators voted 57-43 on whether to convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors for “willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”
So there. Your ■■■■■■■■ has once again been exposed for the ■■■■■■■■ it is.
JWK
Schumer and his hate America crowd have turned New York City into a crime, rat, garbage and homeless infested ■■■■ hole.
No my assertion is that Congress does not have to do anything and the president can still be prosecuted.
Nothing in the constitution makes Congress the sole arbiter of the presidents criminal acts.
You textualist you.
The fact that they tried him after he was out of office was done so that he can never hold that office again. Aka removal. You knew this too since this was discussed at length at the time.
But keep stomping those feet
The obtuseness and stubbornness is coming from you
You cannot cite any portion of the constitution that makes Congress the initial arbiter of the presidents acts. Just that it has the power to impeach and try him. Not that power only vests in Congress
But let’s keep going in circles. I am not giving up because you have asserted some whoppers before but this one really takes the cake.
WuWei
237
It seems the concept of qualified immunity is very popular in government.
2 Likes
If we go by English common law (which is used in US court cases) who had the authority to try and punish the king? I don’t think the courts ever did really. It was always Parliament. They cut one King’s head off without the court’s involvement. I’m thinking it’s really job of congress since congress was created as a stand in for parliament minus the Legislative Supremacy that Parliament bestowed on itself.
Of course it is. It’s a get out of jail free card in Monopoly.
1 Like
WuWei
240
Who had the authority to try the prime minister?
I’m not sure to be honest. I would assume parliament. They’re technically Royal ministers since the crown does technically appoint them in ceremony. But they only serve as long as they have the confidence of the legislature. So a vote of no confidence and boom, new prime minister. I think technically the crown still has the legal power to dismiss a prime minister, but I think it’s one of those powers they don’t exercise anymore after the monarchy was reformed during WWI. Back in the olden days the Crown dismissed Prime Ministers almost all the time.
Which based on how the presidency works and what the Founders were trying to create with their familiarity with the British system, the president is more like a constitutional King who has no noble titles or royal land he directly controls and has no hereditary rights for his children. It often feels like that were trying to merge the Prime Minister and the King together for the presidency, but gave them no legislative power and noble titles were something they were never going to consider since that was part of the reason they were all pissed off on the first place. But kept the King’s powers of war, peace, and gave him a half measure in regards to the courts since he would nominate judges, but wouldn’t actually be over them. Those are powers the PM has now but didn’t have back then.
The parliament of today is way different than the parliament the founders would have been familiar with. Since they absorbed most of the king’s powers over the decades and derived it to their chosen PM. Back when the founders were alive, the King had a much more active role in how the Empire functioned.
Which that makes me think. Prime Ministers could be tried by the courts for non-political crimes. Stuff like bribery or corruption. But I don’t think that really instructs us in the Trump case since the crime he is accused of inherently political, not criminal. And the intel case is an issue of the office itself; if the office actually does confer unlimited power in regard to intel. I happen to think it actually does since the office bestows upon its holder an unlimited security clearance without any kind of background checks or need to sign any sort of forms. To me them trying to use that is weak. The election interference if proven actually would constitute a for sure political crime. We technically have no system to deal with it and I don’t think the British did either. They certainly didn’t back then.
