the senate voted and confirmed they did have that power.
Because it only required a majority vote. Conviction did not happen because Senators believed the trial was unconstitutional.
your position is illogical. You think it is unconstitutional for an impeachment to happen without roberts. I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say your right. Then the senate and congress aren't doing anything wrong. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Roberts is the one violating the constitution.
It isn’t illogical. The Senate is holding an unconstitutional trial. They must subpoena the Chief Justice to preside for them to continue. Just like a law isn’t a law with just the President’s signature, the trial isn’t constitutional without Roberts present.
here is a link. Congress may impeach any federal official, including a senator
No where in your link does it mention a member of the House of Senate can be impeached. I specifically cited Constitutional text that says “Officers.” I also cited the relevant clause where the Constitution defines these “Officers.” You’re wrong.
true. And the senate did vote to remove blount. So what exactly is your issue?
The House can’t impeach a Senator lol. Senators kicked him out not because of the Articles of Impeachment but under their powers in Article 1 Section 3 to expulse members of their own body with 2/3 vote.
so your argument is that the supreme court can block an impeachment and the only way to move forward with one impeachment is to have a different impeachment? That still gives the supreme court a veto on impeaching the president which is definitely not what the power of impeachment intended.
Correct. If CJ Roberts refuses to abide by his constitutional duty then he should be impeached and convicted and when a new Chief Justice swears his oath, only then can the proceeding start. There is no Judicial Veto because refusal is grounds for impeachment.
again, you make no sense. The trial is fine. If anyone has violated the constitution it is Roberts, not congress.
False, Congress is violating the Constitution by holding a trial for the President of the United States without the Chief Justice presiding. I’ve already explained the relevant analogy.
if they can prevent a veto by refusing to preside over it, then they have vetoed it. They do not have that power. If roberts refuses to preside, then someone else will need to do it. It is pretty straight forward.
There is no Judicial Veto because the system of Checks and Balances ensures that the Chief Justice should be impeached and convicted for refusing to preside over the trial. It’s called once again Checks and Balances.
