Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Of course Congress and the Vice President have to count the votes before it is official. Depending on who you talk to, the Vice President can refuse to count the votes claiming fraud, and then pick whomever he wants as President. We had a riot about that recently.

Trump's out of a job.  We should let him count the votes. 

[TechTalk]

The courts are the final arbiter of constitutionality, not the Senate.

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided that all questions regarding the political impeachment, trial, and judgment for misconduct of government officials belong solely and exclusively to the Congress and that the Court is not allowed to review those decisions. The Court has declared that to intervene in any way would be a violation of fundamental separation of powers embodied in the Constitution and a violation of the clear language and intent of the Constitution for a multitude of well established constitutional principles and precedents. One of those is that as neither the executive or legislative branches are given constitutional authority to over rule decisions made by the Court, the sole check on the power of justices of the Supreme Court, once nominated and confirmed, is impeachment by Congress. Impeachment is also a check on the power of the Executive Branch.

Each branch of government has power that is granted solely to that branch by the Constitution and which cannot be impinged upon by either of the other two branches because that power serves as a check on the other branches competing for power. For Congress, impeachment—which is a power given solely to the House and trial and judgement of impeachment which is a power given solely to the Senate—is one of those powers that cannot be breached by any other branch.

Even when the Chief Justice presides over a presidential impeachment, it is the Senate that has final say on any rulings of any kind. Any presiding officer of any impeachment trial in the Senate is bound by senate rules and the vote of the senate. Any ruling by the presiding officer can be challenged by any individual senator which is then decided by a vote of the Senate. Any decisions made by the Senate are final and not subject to review by any court.

There is no debate about it. It is settled Constitutional law.

[TechTalk]

Trump's out of a job.  We should let him count the votes. 

If Trump were a clerk at a convenience store, I wouldn't trust him to count my change back without immediately counting it again myself. He's a person of no character with no morals or conscience.

[TechTalk]

The Presiding judge sits for other federal officials as you say. But Trump was a civilian at the time of his trial.

Trump has never been anything but a civilian, including his time of holding public office as president. [Civilian: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force] An important principle of the Constitution is civilian control of the military by giving commander-in-chief power to a civilian elected office holder, the President of the United States. I believe that you are referring to his being a former office holder that was subject to impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. Trump has never been more than a civilian holding an elected public office.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/Congress, Civilian Control of the Military, and Nonpartisanship - Updated June 11, 2020

So they had no jurisdiction to try him.

They not only had the jurisdiction provided to them by the Constitution, they exercised that jurisdiction by actually trying him for his misconduct while holding the trust of a public office. That's the sole purpose of impeachment and is a power and jurisdiction which the Constitution has granted solely to Congress to exercise. A clear and bipartisan majority voted to convict but missed reaching the required two-thirds supermajority by 10 votes out of a pool of 100.

If he violated the law and caused insurrection, he has to be tried in a court of law, not the senate.

Impeachment and trial by Congress does not prevent criminal or civil charges from also being filed by the executive branch nor trial of any charges by the judicial branch. Indictment and trial in a court of law does not prevent impeachment. They are completely separate functions carried out by different branches of government for separate purposes. One does not preclude the other as a matter of law or constitutionality. In short, I suggest doing some homework rather than parroting what you've heard or read. The arguments that you're putting forth have only failed when presented including the most recent impeachment and trial. I'm beginning to feel like I'm repeating myself.

That;s why Ford pardoned Nixon.  Not to prevent an impeachment and Senate trial.  But to prevent criminal charges and trial in Federal court.

That's correct. Because, there was nothing that Ford could have done to prevent an impeachment and Senate trial. That choice was at the sole discretion and decision of Congress and they chose not to proceed with impeachment and trial after Nixon's resignation. With the existence of the White House tapes revealed and their contents made public, showing irrefutable evidence of many extraordinary and repugnant abuses of power, Congress decided that there was no need to proceed with impeachment as he resigned from office and the tapes destroyed Nixon's political future on their own. Nixon disqualified himself from future political office by recording his horrific betrayals of office, Congress didn't feel a need to formalize that reality.

[faberryman]

Trump's out of a job.  We should let him count the votes. 

And of course Alan thinks that it is funny. A president just exercising his legal rights to contest an election and his First Amendment right to free speech to spread insidious lies and incite an insurrection and assault on our Capitol by a riotous mob for the purpose of disenfranchising every citizen of the republic and seizing power by force for which, under our great system of democracy, he may not be held accountable by the simple expedient of not allowing him to hold office again. And further, after reading a couple of specious blog posts on the internet, Alan anoints himself a constitutional scholar, and comes here to lecture us by bald assertion, that's right, bald assertion, not a single solitary statement supported by any reasoning or authority whatsoever, that it's just too damn bad we don't like it, that's the way it is. Who is the greater danger to our nation?

[Robert Roaldi]

And of course Alan thinks that it is funny. A President just exercising his legal rights to contest an election and his First Amendment right to free speech to spread insidious lies and incite an insurrection and assault on our Capitol by a riotous mob for the purpose of disenfranchising every citizen of the republic and seizing power by force for which, under our great system democracy, he may not be held accountable by the simple expedient of not allowing him to hold office again. And further, after reading a couple of specious blog posts on the internet, Alan anoints himself a constitutional scholar, and comes here to lecture us by bald assertion, that's right, bald assertion, not a single solitary statement supported by any reasoning or authority whatsoever, that it's just too damn bad we don't like it, that's the way it is.

Like I've said before, lots of people invoke the "founding fathers" and the "constitution' and "freedom" and such, but that's just code. What they really want is the freedom to conform. The various groups really stand for "Christian" white supremacy and don't want trans people living next door, as if it's any of their damn business who lives next door. Same way lots of business leaders preach competition and the free market but only when it works in their favour. I mean, there's a chronic shortage of retirement home staff in Quebec but their salaries never get above minimum wage. I guess supply and demand is context-dependent then. There's a lot of talk of freedom of speech but there are still people who say that the four students shot at Kent State got what was coming to them. Imagine if four Proud Boys had been randomly gunned down at the Capitol !

Sorry for the rambling rant, I'm just so sick of the hypocritical redneck bullshit. I'm going to have to tune out of this crap for a while, it's not doing me any good.

[digitaldog]

t
The courts are the final arbiter of constitutionality, not the Senate.

In the context of the impeachment we just saw, moot. Clearly your comment proves you did not read what I posted with such a statement that had nothing to do with the FINAL arbiter of the Constitution. Try actually reading before the knee jerks.*
And to answer Roberts question; even a broken clock is right twice a day. It's got a better track record as illustrated again.

The final arbitrator of what Alan believes is true is Alan. Much of what he believes is untrue.

* "Listen to understand instead of listening to respond." - Barack Obama

[Alan Klein]

There are three categories of penalties that under the U.S. Constitution an individual could potentially be subjected to: criminal; civil; and political. Bills of attainder enacted by any state or federal legislature which target an individual with civil or criminal liability are unconstitutional. The political punishment of an individual thru impeachment is a separate and distinct act that by its very nature is confined to an individual that has violated a trust under oath to faithfully uphold their constitutional duties in a specific public office and is not prohibited by the Constitution nor is it subject to judicial review as a civil or criminal legislative act would be as I have explained above.

It does not require an extensive legal education to understand that the prohibition of a legislature passing criminal or civil laws that target a specific individual or which exclude judicial process and review [a Bill of Attainder] is different from the political process of impeachment for individuals violating their oath or trust of public office by their conduct in that office. There are no civil or criminal penalties to impeachment and conviction as it is entirely a political process with wholly political punishments.

Criminal or civil judicial conviction does not prohibit, nor does it automatically trigger, an impeachment of a public official. Impeachment and conviction of a public official does not prohibit, nor does it automatically trigger, a criminal or civil judicial trial or conviction. They are completely separate functions of government for entirely separate purposes; and by law and constitutional construction have entirely different rules, standards, and punishments.

The whole point of the Senate trial against Trump would be to punish him since he already was no longer President.  Removing him from office, the main point of impeachment, was moot. So it could be interpreted that Congress was using its legislative powers against a non-federal official, a "civilian", and therefore might be interpreted as a Bill of Attainder.  The whole point of Bills of Attainder is to assure that people get their day in court in a real trial and are not singled out by Congress for punishment.  If Trump did something illegal, like incitement, then he should be tried in a court of law, where he would have the full rights to defend himself as any other criminal defendant.

What would be interesting is that Trump being his ornery self, will file a lawsuit to have the Senate trial declared null and void and the record expunged to give back his good name.  That what the senate did was illegal and unconstitutional.  They tried an ex-president.  Also, the constitution requires a president to have the Chief Justice as presiding officer.  Instead, Democrat Senator Schumer assigned another Democrat Senator to fill this job.  Not only that, but this Senator already declared Trump guilty before the trial, was a witness in it, and also voted as a juror.  It was unconstitutional for him to be the presiding judge.

Of course, I would think the courts would say it's all moot since he was found not guilty.  Or they could say it was legitimate. On the other hand, they could declare Trump is right and throw the whole Senate trial out.  That would be actually worse for Trump.  The Democrats would be so pissed off, they would have Biden's AG file criminal charges and actually, take him to court and be tried.

[faberryman]

[post omitted to avoid the further spread of disinformation]

More complete nonsense, fantasy, and bald assertions unsupported by any reasoning or authority. Not worthy of response.

[Alan Klein]

The Chief Justice presides when a President currently holding office is tried. The Presiding Officer of the Senate presides over all other impeachment trials. Those facts have no bearing on the strength or weakness of any argument regarding the constitutionality of impeachment or trial of former office holders. The strength or weakness of such arguments is determined by history, precedent, reason, logic, and the Constitution. A reasonable and logical reading of the constitutional provisions for impeachment and trial has resulted in multiple historical precedents being established that it is constitutional to hold previous office holders accountable for their actions while in office thru the political process of impeachment and trial for the very same reasons that the framers established the impeachment process for removal and potential disqualification of current office holders—to protect the nation from individuals whose conduct represents a danger if allowed to remain in office or to seek office in the future.

To clarify your point, the Presiding Officer of the Senate presides over impeachment trials of government officials other than the president.  That's not Donald Trump.  The fact is the constitution is silent on who presides over ex-presidents.  So it can be argued that the writers of the constitution did not approve of impeachments of former presidents.  Your point is just another argument that the Senate trial was unconstitutional. 

[Alan Klein]

More complete nonsense, fantasy, bald assertions unsupported by any reasoning or authority, and not worthy of response.

I used this for my authority.
https://www.concordia.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/0-6.-The-Constitution-of-the-United-States.pdf

[digitaldog]

I used this for my authority.
https://www.concordia.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/0-6.-The-Constitution-of-the-United-States.pdf

What did you get your wife for Valentines day?

[TechTalk]

Your point is just another argument that the Senate trial was unconstitutional.

Only if read with both mind and eyes closed.

[faberryman]

Apropos of nothing in particular, does anyone remember those segments from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show where Bullwinkle plays Mr. Know-It-All?

https://youtu.be/qGkaUxmpqJo

[Alan Klein]

Only if read with both mind and eyes closed.

I was able to appreciate your arguments. So I'm surprised you accuse me of keeping my mind and eyes closed while you appear to be doing the very thing you accuse me of.

In any case, this argument has been debated before. So in the spirit of enlightenment, I was curious to see what knowledgeable people are saying about it recently.  Here's a podcast debate between two knowledgeable experts who take opposite positions.  You may find it interesting.  I did.

We The People Podcast
Can a Former President Be Tried for Impeachment?
January 21, 2021
Judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Professor Keith Whittington of Princeton join host Jeffrey Rosen to consider how to interpret the constitutional text and historical precedent surrounding the question of whether the Senate can hold President Trump’s impeachment trial now that he’s left office.

Judge Luttig explains why he thinks that the president cannot be tried and convicted by the Senate after he has already left office, and why only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can hold an impeachment trial for a former president. Professor Whittington details his view that a former president can be tried and convicted, and that it’s a purely political question up to the Senate to ultimately decide.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/can-a-former-president-be-tried-for-impeachment

[digitaldog]

I was able to appreciate your arguments. So I'm surprised you accuse me of keeping my mind and eyes closed while you appear to be doing the very thing you accuse me of.

He, like others don't appreciate your argument about this weeks impeachment because you keep ignoring: In the context of the impeachment we just saw, moot.

IF and when the Supreme Court can answer the question, they will, and they haven't. But the Senate did in terms of last weeks impeachment.

It's all a red herring for people like those who acquitted and yourself to have a flimsy excuse not to hold Trump accountable.

Here's WHY he can and was impeached by the Senate, explained by a Republican Senator:

“If months of lies, organizing a rally of supporters in an effort to thwart the work of Congress, encouraging a crowd to march on the Capitol, and then taking no meaningful action to stop the violence once it began is not worthy of impeachment, conviction, and disqualification from holding office in the United States, I cannot imagine what is.”
“By inciting the insurrection and violent events that culminated on January 6, President Trump’s actions and words were not protected free speech. I honor our constitutional rights and consider the freedom of speech as one of the most paramount freedoms, but that right does not extend to the President of the United States inciting violence.”
“Before someone assumes the office of the presidency, they are required to swear to faithfully execute the office of the President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. President Trump – the nation’s elected leader, the Commander in Chief of our armed forces – swore an oath to defend America and all that we hold sacred. He failed to uphold that oath." Lisa Murkowski

I really don't expect you to read and digest such facts. 
 

[faberryman]

And then there is everybody's favorite argument.

https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

[TechTalk]

Also, the constitution requires a president to have the Chief Justice as presiding officer.

That is NOT what the Constitution requires! Look at the words again. The Constitution SAYS: "When the President of the United States is tried...". Joe Biden was the President of the United States when Trump was tried. Trump was NOT. There is ONLY ONE president at any given time.

Instead, Democrat Senator Schumer assigned another Democrat Senator to fill this job.

That is completely false. Senator Schumer did NOT assign the Presiding Officer of the Senate. The RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS - Last revised on Aug. 16, 1986 determines who presides. Those rules required the President pro tempore of the United States Senate to preside. President pro tempore of the United States Senate is an office created and mandated by the Constitution. Patrick Leahy holds that office which by long-standing senate tradition falls to the longest serving member of the majority party.

It was unconstitutional for him to be the presiding judge.

No, it was his duty to perform the role of Presiding Officer. There is no presiding judge as the Senate is the sole arbiter of all rules and procedures during a trial on impeachment.

The United States Constitution: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." [Capitalization as in original document]

[digitaldog]

That is completely false.

Yes, of course it is. Meanwhile, Alan was given the opportunity to answer a question that could be completely false and can't be fact checked and ducked:

What did you get your wife for Valentines day?

Alan, is the Earth flat? 

[chez]

Trump's out of a job.  We should let him count the votes. 

He's good until he runs out of fingers.