Can you impeach a former president ?

Damocles said:
Seems like a question for the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, until you realize that the Constitution specifically says that the Senate and the Senate alone decides. The Supreme Court unanimously found that they have no say.

So it is constitutionally a question that the Senate has to answer.

Damocles said:
What does it say about an individual's right to a fair trial?
Click to expand...

It is not a criminal trial. There is no question of property or freedom. It is closer to an administrative hearing, but not even that. There is no constitutional right to be president. If there were, there would be too many presidents to get anything done.

There is some limited right to "due process", but what is due process in this case is decided by the Senate.

McConnell is about to be removed as Senate Majority Leader, does he have the right to a full trial before the vote? Of course not.

What is the harm to a private citizen to be impeached? I do not hold public office, and have no intention of ever holding public office. What do I lose if I am impeached and convicted? They cannot remove me from office, and cannot prevent me from taking an office I do not intend to hold. I really have nothing that I have lost, so nothing I can bother the Supreme Court over.
 
Damocles said:
Again, according to the constitution they get a say in a trial for a sitting elected official or appointed Judge
Click to expand...

No, actually it doesn't. What it says is, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.... Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." And later it says, "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."

No where in there does it limit who can be impeached, and convicted. It says that civil officers are removed for impeachment and conviction, but not that they are the only ones who can be impeached and convicted.

More importantly, it says the House has sole power of impeachment, and the Senate has sole power of a trial. So the decision about who can be impeached, and who can be tried is not up to anyone else but the House and the Senate.

If the Senate decides this goes no further, then this goes no further.
, they do not get a "say" in a trial of a citizen as that is covered and the power for that does not lie with the Senate.

Just saying things, like Walt does above, doesn't change that this particular scenario has no precedent and that quite a few scholars simply disagree with Walt.[/QUOTE]
 
Son of the Revolution said:
But can the Senate put him on trial?
Click to expand...

According to the Constitution the decision over whether the Senate can put him on trial or not is solely given to the Senate. Given the current makeup of the Senate, there would need to be at least some tacit support by Republicans to continue. I am alright with that. Let the Republicans decide whether this continues or not.
 
Walt said:
According to the Constitution the decision over whether the Senate can put him on trial or not is solely given to the Senate. Given the current makeup of the Senate, there would need to be at least some tacit support by Republicans to continue. I am alright with that. Let the Republicans decide whether this continues or not.
Click to expand...


The Senate must hold a trial once the House gives them the impeachment article(s).
 
Truth Detector said:
No it can't. But I am all for some evidence that supports your loony claims. ;)
Click to expand...

The Constitution reads, "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Nowhere does it place any limit on that power, other than to hand sole power to the House.

Then it goes on to hand sole power of trying the impeachment to the Senate. The only limitation on that power is an extreme limitation on what a conviction can do. A conviction can only remove an President, VP, or other officer from office, and/or keep the convicted from ever holding office again.
 
Scum of the Revolution
giphy.gif

so you fucking anti-American liberal asswipes are afraid of him.... got it
Click to expand...
 
martin said:
It’s possible the Court could decide the basic function is removal and if that is no longer at issue the secondary function of banning future terms cannot be reached. This would not be a reversal of precedent since it’s a question of first impression.
Click to expand...

That is not how things work. Appealing the "basic function" of the trial is still appealing the trial. That is prohibited under the Constitution. So you need to violate the explicit statements of the Constitution for something you think might be sort of implied, but really implied.

"Son of the Revolution" might be right, and it might be a waste of taxpayer money. But the Supreme Court does not get to reverse Congressional decisions just because they are wastes of money. Congress gets to decide how money is spent.

If this has no function, that is for Congress to decide, not the Supreme Court.
 
BidenPresident said:
The Senate must hold a trial once the House gives them the impeachment article(s).
Click to expand...

Yes, and no. They can hold a trial that is no trial. With the first count of the impeachment of Johnson, they held a trial, and a vote. For the second, and third, they just left the trial open. In theory, the trial of Johnson continues 150 years later, but in reality they just held no trial.

So basically the Constitution requires the Senate to hold a trial, but leaves it up to the honor of the Senate whether it does that or not. If Republicans really want to block it, they can. Then there would be extended investigations into the crimes, and advertisements when the Senators go up for reelection about their support for the crimes.
 
Walt said:
Yes, and no. They can hold a trial that is no trial. With the first count of the impeachment of Johnson, they held a trial, and a vote. For the second, and third, they just left the trial open. In theory, the trial of Johnson continues 150 years later, but in reality they just held no trial.

So basically the Constitution requires the Senate to hold a trial, but leaves it up to the honor of the Senate whether it does that or not. If Republicans really want to block it, they can. Then there would be extended investigations into the crimes, and advertisements when the Senators go up for reelection about their support for the crimes.
Click to expand...


Trial is only the means by which a vote is taken. The Senate has no discretion to not vote on the impeachment.
 
Son of the Revolution said:
so you fucking anti-American liberal asswipes are afraid of him.... got it
Click to expand...

You are not actually quoting the Constitution, but rather just posting insults against those who do quote the Constitution.

You believe this is a waste of taxpayer money. You might be right. Questions over what is the best way to spend the taxpayers money is up to the Congress, and being "wasteful" is not a question for the Supreme Court.
 
BidenPresident said:
Trial is only the means by which a vote is taken. The Senate has no discretion to not vote on the impeachment.
Click to expand...

Much as the Senate has no discretion to not vote for nominees, it is a self-regulating obligation. So in past cases when the Senate has not voted, there is no one to appeal it to.
 
Walt said:
Much as the Senate has no discretion to not vote for nominees, it is a self-regulating obligation. So in past cases when the Senate has not voted, there is no one to appeal it to.
Click to expand...

Even McConnell never said there would be no vote. But Dems will control the Senate, so the issue is moot.
 
Walt said:
That is not how things work. Appealing the "basic function" of the trial is still appealing the trial. That is prohibited under the Constitution. So you need to violate the explicit statements of the Constitution for something you think might be sort of implied, but really implied.

"Son of the Revolution" might be right, and it might be a waste of taxpayer money. But the Supreme Court does not get to reverse Congressional decisions just because they are wastes of money. Congress gets to decide how money is spent.

If this has no function, that is for Congress to decide, not the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Sorry, deciding the purpose of legislation is how things work at the Supreme Court. The purpose of Constitutional language is solely for the SC, not Congress.
 
martin said:
Sorry, deciding the purpose of legislation is how things work at the Supreme Court. The purpose of Constitutional language is solely for the SC, not Congress.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not say that, and in this case says that it is solely for the Congress to decide.

The first point is actually interesting here. The Constitution does not specifically say that the Supreme Court is the sole decider of the Constitutions language. It does specifically allow the courts to apply the laws in individual cases... With the sole exceptions of impeachment cases, rules of Congress, and discipline within the Congress. They are not granted much beyond that. They claimed more power for deciding language of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison, but have never gone beyond those exceptions.
 
Charoite said:
He can't be removed since he's leaving but he can be kept from running again. Impeachment was also begun while he was still president and not the former.
Click to expand...
Bob is an idiot. He thinks he's being cute.

Convicting trump also opens him up to losing quite a few post presidential perks if the Senate opts to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top