Trump Impeachment # 2

[knapplc]

20 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

The Unconstitutional opinion rests on the plain language of the Constitution.

 

Clearly this is untrue for two reasons. The first being the precedent-setting trial of William Belknap, and the second being the upcoming trial of trump. If it were unconstitutional it wouldn't be happening.

 

Here's a great breakdown on why this trial will happen.

 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

If impeachment after leaving office wasn't allowed, then any official could simply resign right before an impeachment was handed down. Plus it has literally already happened before, so that is precedent as set by the Senate. Precedent does not require a court, especially since courts are for criminal and civil cases and impeachment is a political case.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/18/957866252/can-the-senate-try-an-ex-president

 

And at the end of the day, the Senate gets to determine how impeachment works:

 

Yes it's "literally" happened before with people such as Richard Nixon who resigned thus depriving Congress of jurisdiction, who very much wanted to Impeach him.  Nixon probably committed actual crimes.   Calling that a 'precedent' says the Senate can rewrite the Constitution as they wish. 

 

The Senate can decide their procedural rules, they cannot change the Constitution.

 

I found another one.  The Chief Justice shall preside if the President is Impeached.  IF you think President = current or former President then the trial is unconstitutional with John Roberts.

[Scarlet]

6 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Yes it's "literally" happened before with people such as Richard Nixon who resigned thus depriving Congress of jurisdiction, who very much wanted to Impeach him.  Nixon probably committed actual crimes.   Calling that a 'precedent' says the Senate can rewrite the Constitution as they wish. 

 

The Senate can decide their procedural rules, they cannot change the Constitution.

 

I found another one.  The Chief Justice shall preside if the President is Impeached.  IF you think President = current or former President then the trial is unconstitutional with John Roberts.

Trump was accused by the House.  Why is the GOP trying to deprive him of a fair trial and the right to defend himself?  It's so unfair.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Yes it's "literally" happened before with people such as Richard Nixon who resigned thus depriving Congress of jurisdiction

What about William Belknap? Is he irrelevant because he contradicts your argument or because you are unfamiliar with him?

[ScarletRevival]

Maybe they should get moving on doing something for their constituents.

 

But nah,  Orange Man hurt their feels..... gotta make the people pay for voting for him.

 

I've been told that we're in the middle of a worldwide pandemic or something. Maybe that whole pandemic thingy ended a couple of weeks ago,  who knows?

[Notre Dame Joe]

7 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Trump was accused by the House.  Why is the GOP trying to deprive him of a fair trial and the right to defend himself?  It's so unfair.

would the Senate allow Trump to testify in his own defense?  That would be the ultimate Trump.

 

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

What about William Belknap? Is he irrelevant because he contradicts your argument or because you are unfamiliar with him?

I addressed it on the previous page.  Bottom line is the Impeachment of Belknao failed.  You're case isn't strong when it's best support is a loser. 

[Scarlet]

2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

would the Senate allow Trump to testify in his own defense?  That would be the ultimate Trump.

 

I addressed it on the previous page.  Bottom line is the Impeachment of Belknao failed.  You're case isn't strong when it's best support is a loser. 

Would love, love, love to see that..lol.  Would he be up there playing four-d chess?

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

Would love, love, love to see that..lol.  Would he be up there playing four-d chess?

 

That would be must-see TV. Could you imagine that train wreck? After he's been kicked off twitter for so long? He would be absolutely frothing up there.

[knapplc]

3 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I addressed it on the previous page.  Bottom line is the Impeachment of Belknao failed.  You're case isn't strong when it's best support is a loser. 

 

 

There seems to be some confusion regarding the process, or maybe just terminology. trump has already been impeached*. The Senate trial isn't an impeachment. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* twice

 

[BigRedBuster]

6 hours ago, ScarletRevival said:

But nah,  Orange Man hurt their feels..... gotta make the people pay for voting for him.

You really think this is because people got their feelings hurt.   

 

And, you're taking this personal because you voted for him?  So....nobody that you ever vote for should be impeached because it hurts YOUR feelings?

[commando]

there are trumpers who  still think hillary should be executed for Benghazi...but don't care that trump orchestrated the storming of the capital and still want him to be president

[Enhance]

4 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I addressed it on the previous page.  Bottom line is the Impeachment of Belknao failed.  You're case isn't strong when it's best support is a loser. 

You've been claiming for some time now this impeachment is unconstitutional but Belknap's situation proves this to be categorically false.

 

Belknap was impeached after he left office. He was later acquitted in the Senate. Trump has been impeached. His trial will take place after he has left office.

 

Your posts disregard basic facts simply because they don't fit your opinion.

[Guy Chamberlin]

19 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

What you know is actually an opinion.

 

The Unconstitutional opinion rests on the plain language of the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

The opinion of most respected lawyers is to stay away from Donald Trump's defense. 

 

Fun fact: Trump's new legal team misspelled the United States in the opening line of their impeachment brief. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-misspell-united-states-in-impeachment-brief-2021-2

[TGHusker]

Interesting argument about a president  vs parliamentary executive.  Basically saying that if we had a parliamentary govt it would have been much easier to remove a incompetent president.     The first quote below details some of the weaknesses in our system as revealed wt the Trump presidency.  The 2nd quote details some suggested solutions. 

 

https://www.chron.com/opinion/article/Did-Trump-prove-that-governments-with-presidents-15924773.php

 

Quote

 

Thirty years ago, a political scientist named Juan Linz wrote a series of influential essays articulating a link between presidencies and democratic backsliding, including by coup. In contrast to parliamentary systems, where legislators choose the chief executive (usually called a prime minister), presidential systems produce rival centers of power and reduce incentives for compromise, Linz argued. When the legislature and the president can each claim an electoral mandate, intractable differences might tempt one or the other to "knock on the barracks door" in search of military allies; a violent dissolution of democracy could be the result. Parliamentarianism, by contrast, provides a safety valve because the legislature has the ability to remove the executive, typically by simple majority vote. Even when things don't get to the stage of full meltdown, presidencies tend to heighten tensions in polarized societies, Linz contended, encouraging extreme political views rather than compromise, and often producing political gridlock.

Did Donald Trump prove him right?

 

 

A professor at Yale who died in 2013, Linz wrote in an era not long after conflicts between presidents and legislatures had preceded military coups in Chile, Brazil and other Latin American countries, leading to brutal dictatorships. Scholars have debated the theory ever since, and, while Linz may have painted with an overly broad brush at times, his arguments hold up better than most middle-aged theories in political science.

The United States, with its long-lived presidential system, always posed a challenge for Linz. But the events of this month - in which a defeated president reluctant to leave office roused a mob that then attacked the national legislature - were precisely the kind of conflict he worried about. And there are many other echoes of Trump in Linz's writings, which argue that the powerful presidency attracts a strongman personality who "will always find it hard to reconcile himself to being out of power for good."

The United States may have avoided the worst possible outcome for a presidency, but other Linzian observations have fresh relevance today. He made the case that since you can run for president without climbing your way up a party ladder - unlike vying to be prime minister - the office appeals to outsider candidates with no allegiance to the political system, who can gain popularity by railing against that system, diminishing trust in it. Presidents are inclined to insist that they and not the fragmented legislature speak for "the people," as a way of aggrandizing their power. (Trump's "silent majority" and "real America" rhetoric fits this pattern.) At the same time, they have less incentive than a legislature to represent the interests of the minority party or parties. Unlike in a parliamentary system, there is no penalty for appointing toadies and hyperpartisan hacks to the Cabinet.

 

 

Quote

 

For better or worse, the United States has the Constitution it does: We are not about to switch to a parliamentary model. So what lessons can we take from Linz that might help clarify the challenges we confront and the sorts of reforms that could help?

The key flaw of a presidential system is that it promotes rigidity and intransigence rather than a search for a middle ground with one's adversaries. So reforms should target such all-or-nothing confrontations and promote compromise.

Reducing the stakes of controlling either the executive or legislative branch would be a step forward. As the judiciary's power has expanded, for example, so have the consequences of nominating and confirming judges, particularly to the Supreme Court; this raises the premium that goes with winning the presidency, as well as controlling the Senate. The much-discussed proposal to limit justices to 18 years on the Supreme Court, staggered so that a vacancy occurs every second year, would reduce the stakes of high court appointments, cooling the attendant politics during elections and in the day-to-day operation of the Senate. Some of the proposals by congressional Democrats to strengthen oversight of the president - and punish executive-branch officials who participate in political activities - might also help rebalance the power arrangement between the two branches, reining in the imperial presidency.

The way we elect our legislators also encourages them to adopt extreme views. This was not always the case, but a series of developments - from demographic sorting (we tend to live near people who think like we do), to technological advances in the software used to draw electoral districts (which can worsen gerrymandering), to the nationalization of campaign fundraising networks - have aligned to reward politicians who cater to the wings of their parties. In districts that lean heavily blue or red, victory in a low-turnout party primary all but guarantees winning the general election, so the views of extreme voters carry more weight.

That might change if we shifted away from the system of single-winner districts, which are not constitutionally ordained. The statute requiring every member of Congress to be elected from a district represented by only one person dates only to 1967. Its repeal would allow (but not require) experimentation with larger districts that could elect multiple winners, with two benefits. First, the fewer districts that must be drawn, the less the district mapping process would drive results, lowering the stakes of gerrymandering. Second, if three or four members were elected from a given district, more moderates who are currently winnowed by their parties' winner-take-all primary elections would get elected to Congress. Predominantly blue districts might send a Republican or two to Washington, and red districts would elect some Democrats. Overall, there would be more opportunities for coalitions that look to the center rather than only to the extremes.

The 2020 election showed how profound the divisions of our presidential system really are. Still, pursuing multiple smaller-bore reforms that encourage compromise and electoral accountability is an achievable strategy. The nation stepped back from the brink last month (though "coup" is now part of our political discourse). But Trump's presidency made clear that our system still encourages polarized clashes. Linz's work provides a framework for understanding what has gone wrong in recent years - and offers clues for getting back on track.

 

 

[knapplc]

 

 

I will be amazed if trump actually does this. My suspicion is he's about to have a horrible relapse of bone spurs.