so you are acknowledging that he was impeached after leaving office and that this is fine. So we are good to impeach trump too. It has been long established that impeachment can happen after someone leaves/is removed from office.
No, I’m saying it’s not fine. If he was convicted I’d support him going to the Supreme Court. You probably didn’t see my subsequent post where I mentioned that the reason 50/75 senators didn’t convict was because they believed that the Senate lacked jurisdiction.
so your objection is that Roberts isn't doing what he is constitutionally required to? Then take that up with roberts. If an impeachment couldn't move forward because the chief justice didn't feel like presiding, then that would give the chief justice a veto on all impeachments. Which is obviously not what the founding fathers intended. It would allow the judicial branch to prevent legislative branch from doing one of it's most important duties.
That’s not my job, that’s the Senate’s job, and I’d support subpoenaing Roberts to show up for the trial if it came to that, but as of now the trial is unconstitutional. And actually if it came to be, Congress could impeach the Chief Justice as well, that’s how the Constitution was designed - Check and Balances.
you are mistaken. The house has the power to impeach any federal official, including senators. The senate did vote to expel Blount. There was nothing unconstitutional about it.
No they don’t lol. Officers are defined in the Constitution as requiring appointment and approval by the Senate or specific laws passed by Congress allowing the President to appoint someone to an agency without Congressional Approval. The method to expulse someone from the Senate is defined as such:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Per the Constitution, a Senator is not an Officer of the United States, nor is a member of the House.
again, you are arguing that the courts can block an impeachment. But that is absolutely not what was intended for the power of impeachment.
They can’t because they themselves would be under the threat of impeachment for neglecting their constitutional duty. Checks and Balances.
the point is that if you can't be impeached after leaving office, then there is no punishment for behavior done in the final days in office. The constitution intended for congress to have the absolute power of impeachment and gave them massive latitude in how to do it and when. What you are arguing is that there is a loophole where presidents are immune to the only punishment available for their actions.
This is also false. You can run a criminal trial in the courts just like the system was designed. If you want to try him in the courts for insurrection go right ahead, because he’s a private citizen now. There is no loophole. Congress can impeach the President up till the last second of the Presidency and the Senate can convict up till the last second of the Presidency. After that they hold no authority over a private citizen. All the crimes possible are prosecutable under federal law as well.
i've already answered this. your point makes no sense. the courts cannot veto an impeachment. If you believe that the chief justice must oversee it, then you should be advocating for forcing him to preside, not for allowing him to veto an impeachment.
I do advocate for him to preside. But right now the trial is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. Courts can’t veto impeachment because they themselves are subject to it.
