It appears you agree the Senate has in fact been delegated, by our Constitution, the authority in question (try the president for an alleged crime). Having established that, where in the Constitution has that delegated power to try the president, been delegated elsewhere?
You cut off the rest. Because it’s easier i guess
Just because Congress has impeachment powers it doesn’t mean that their actions are condition precedent to a criminal prosecution of a president for acts not in furtherance of the presidency.
Nothing in the cognition says that Congress has the sole authority or their actions must precede a prosecution
You are making things up
Things you would never make up for a dem president
Sure. In terms of removing him from office.
Criminal proceedings belong in the judiciary
1 Like
From the SCarguments today:
Justice Barrett asks why presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts unless convicted at impeachment — Trump’s theory — when other officials subject to impeachment, like Supreme Court justices, are not. Trump’s lawyer, Sauer, invokes the view of the former solicitor general Robert Bork, when he was helping Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal in 1973. Here is the brief Sauer was referencing.
1 Like
I have not made up anything. Our constitution specifically, and intentionally carves out a process to impeach and then try the president for a crime as I documented HERE
Did you read the following?
Hastings had been impeached in May 1787, the same month the U.S. constitutional convention opened. The House of Commons charged Hastings with a mix of criminal offenses and non-criminal offenses, including confiscating land and provoking a revolt in parts of India. Hastings’ trial by the House of Lords was pending while the American delegates were debating in Philadelphia. Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings. (In the end, The House of Lords acquitted Hastings in 1795.)
This was also taken up in the SC today.
Listenedto it walking to lunch. The DoJ looked extensively at that at the time.
Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.
1 Like
No it doesn’t.
It spells out how to remove him.
1 Like
As I already documented, Madision disagrees with you. The very purpose of a Senate trial is to determine if the President has committed a crime.
Why must you make up ■■■■ and gaslight on such an important issue.
Impeach not nothing else
The constitution doesn’t say sole authority nor does it vest Congress with sole jurisdiction over a president. You are trying so hard.
1 Like
Did you miss what I previously have STATED?
The Senate’s job is to determine if the president has committed a crime, but does not have authority to prosecute that crime. Once the Senate does its job and finds the president guilty of a crime, that opens the door for the president to be prosecuted under statutory law. Jurisdiction over whether a crime has been committed is left in the hands of the Senate.
The irrefutable fact is, our founders intentionally provided a specific remedy to deal with alleged misdeeds committed by a president while in office, part of which is a Senate trial to determine if the charges are valid. I cannot find any power in the constitution, delegating that same authority to a judicial proceeding taking place in a state venue.
Our constitution is one of defined and limited grants of power. Where in the Constitution has the power delegated to the Senate to hold a trial to determine if the President has committed a crime, been delegated to a venue other than the Senate?
Are Madison’s writings the Constitution?
Stop accusing people of making things up. We’re having a discussion. You sound like a child.
2 Likes
Is he incorrect?
Documenting legislative intent and adhering to it, is part of our system of law and acknowledged under the Seventh Amendment (adhering “to the rules of the common law”).
Has committed a crime (not even a real crime but a high crime or misdemeanor whatever that is) for purposes of impeachment. Nothing else. Everything else you are reading into the constitution. You textualist you
Separation of powers and what not.
1 Like
I mean I guess we could just make ■■■■ up like the French First Republic did. I mean under the Constitution of 1791 technically Louis could not be tried and convicted for anything. He could only be forced to abdicate after impeachment.
They didn’t let it stop them. They cut off his head in 1793. Because they just made ■■■■ up.
Madison would disagree with you.
Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings.
If this the case then we need to haul every single currently living ex-president into a court. They all committed crimes against the Republic as a consequence of serving as president.
Bill Clinton and George Bush go first. Obama would go after them. And if Trump wasn’t already in court I’d say bring him to a tribunal as well. And as soon as he leaves office, Biden goes to the tribunal.
And heck while we are at it let’s dig up some dead presidents and convict them too.
I doubt if our founders would agree with that. It appears the remedy (impeachment and trial) is limited to an acting president, during his tenure.
