“So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.
That’s all. Thank you for explaining.”
Precedents aren’t absolute. If they were, Scott v Sanford would still be the law of the land. I already mentioned that precedents that are inherently unconstitutional should not be entertained. The Belknap trial would be a constitutional precedent that showed former holders cannot be convicted. If a future Senate were to convict they’d still be acting in an unconstitutional manner.
“Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?”
No. The Constitution doesn’t allow impeachment’s and convictions of private citizens period. If they did, it would be unconstitutional and I’d personally sue all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide.
Actually the Senate was in like pro forma sessions or something. To officially do something like hold a trial, unanimous consent would be required but Hawley and Cruz wouldn’t have agreed. But either way Pelosi held the Articles for 5 days after the sessions were over before transferring them over
“Thats not what I'm stating. You're making a claim that it's immoral for ANYONE to lower their standard of living to help other people, even willingly.
Also my political beliefs don't have any relevance”
Morality has no limits. If you say we have an obligation to help people, we have an obligation to help ALL the people. Saying that we have an obligation to help AS MANY as we can inherently means that I will suffer to help someone else. It’s like two extremes meeting in the middle. The poor gets richer and the richer gets poorer. Now as the provider of my family that works to enrich my family, it would be immoral for me to decrease my family’s standard of living.
Morality has a limit. It is moral to help people. But it is also immoral to make yourself and your families standard of living go lower to help as many people as we can.
“So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.
That’s all. Thank you for explaining.”
Precedents aren’t absolute. If they were, Scott v Sanford would still be the law of the land. I already mentioned that precedents that are inherently unconstitutional should not be entertained. The Belknap trial would be a constitutional precedent that showed former holders cannot be convicted. If a future Senate were to convict they’d still be acting in an unconstitutional manner.
“Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?”
No. The Constitution doesn’t allow impeachment’s and convictions of private citizens period. If they did, it would be unconstitutional and I’d personally sue all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Looks like I’m on track to win. GGs
Thank you for voting!
Thank you for your interest in voting! I hope you enjoy!
I’ve asked Chris and Ragnar to vote on the debate, they’re extremely objective in their analysis.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thank you for your interest in voting!
Please vote!
Your first link does not work in your R2 rebuttal. Can you post it here so I and the judges can see it?
Same here lol, snow storm cancelled school here in Texas lmaoo
Actually the Senate was in like pro forma sessions or something. To officially do something like hold a trial, unanimous consent would be required but Hawley and Cruz wouldn’t have agreed. But either way Pelosi held the Articles for 5 days after the sessions were over before transferring them over
Hope y’all vote in the debate!
Actually, Senate Rules prevented the Trial from beginning until Trump was out of office. Pelosi didn’t send the Articles anyways
I sure hope you’ll be voting lol
Gonna have to leave that to the experts, idek how to make a proper vote on this site lol
Iconic movie
“Thats not what I'm stating. You're making a claim that it's immoral for ANYONE to lower their standard of living to help other people, even willingly.
Also my political beliefs don't have any relevance”
Morality has no limits. If you say we have an obligation to help people, we have an obligation to help ALL the people. Saying that we have an obligation to help AS MANY as we can inherently means that I will suffer to help someone else. It’s like two extremes meeting in the middle. The poor gets richer and the richer gets poorer. Now as the provider of my family that works to enrich my family, it would be immoral for me to decrease my family’s standard of living.
Yes, my obligation is to enrich my family, not make them poorer. And your “moral” proposal is basically socialism at that point.
Morality has a limit. It is moral to help people. But it is also immoral to make yourself and your families standard of living go lower to help as many people as we can.
BoP should be on pro since they are arguing against the status quo. If you are illegal, you are deported, that’s the law.