Rand puts a nail in the coffin on second impeachment attempt.

[Invisible Man]

I would presume his rationale for why he thinks the Constitution says what it does, is 2nd grade English reading ability, and shouldn't require a graduate level thesis on why "and" =/= "or".

I agree. Maybe he'll shed some more light on it eventually. Hopefully he didn't stumble into that same error.

[acptulsa]

Granted, there may be certain private citizens out there who exercise powerful political influence who may fall under this possibility. I haven't really considered that possibility. But even if there are, it wouldn't be just anyone.

Of course not just any civilian can be banned from public office by this process, it has to be someone who first can be impeached. And impeachment, by definition, is limited to offenses that involve the abuse of public trust (see, e.g., Federalist 65), such that people who have never held an office of public trust logically cannot be guilty of such offenses. But a civilian who is a former office holder, who committed offenses of that nature while in office, can be.

Those goalposts of yours really get around. I never realized logic can change so much in a day.

[TheTexan]

I agree. Maybe he'll shed some more light on it eventually. Hopefully he didn't stumble into that same error.

I agree also.

[Invisible Man]

I for many people especially here, we believe the Constitution means what it says it means.

Again. I hope you're right. I'm seeing some evidence to the contrary here. But I honestly believe this is an exceptional case.

[Invisible Man]

Those goalposts of yours really get around. I never realized logic can change so much in a day.

The quotes you just gave don't show any moving goalposts.

They both say "not just any civilian." The first quote may be broader than the second, but as I said clearly in the very words you quote, I was just hypothesizing there about how the concept could possibly be (n.b. the words "granted" and "may") stretched that far, and said I hadn't really considered that possibility. My point (which was clear) was not to advocate that position but to offer it as an aside for further consideration.

The second quote isn't just hypothesizing about possible extreme cases, but referring to simple and clear cases of people who have held clear public offices. With someone who has been POTUS, there is no possible question that they in that office had the capacity to commit the kinds of offenses that impeachment covers.

[Brian4Liberty]

Article 1, Section 3:


Of course not just any civilian can be banned from public office by this process, it has to be someone who first can be impeached. And impeachment, by definition, is limited to offenses that involve the abuse of public trust (see, e.g., Federalist 65), such that people who have never held an office of public trust logically cannot be guilty of such offenses. But a civilian who is a former office holder, who committed offenses of that nature while in office, can be.

And my claim that this has been done before is settled science. It has been done before. One may argue that it was unconstitutional in those instances. But it is certainly not a "new congressional power."

Yeah, that's what I thought. You just repeated Schumer's case. That's not how Rand or I read that Section.

So how about "It has been done before"? Give us a case, and quote relevant text if you have a link.

[acptulsa]

The quotes you just gave don't show any moving goalposts.

They both say "not just any civilian." The first quote may be broader than the second, but as I said clearly in the very words you quote, I was just hypothesizing there about how the concept could possibly be (n.b. the words "granted" and "may") stretched that far, and said I hadn't really considered that possibility. My point (which was clear) was not to advocate that position but to offer it as an aside for further consideration.

The second quote isn't just hypothesizing about possible extreme cases, but referring to simple and clear cases of people who have held clear public offices. With someone who has been POTUS, there is no possible question that they in that office had the capacity to commit the kinds of offenses that impeachment covers.

Yeah, dude, you made that clear as crystal *rolls eyes*.

...there may be...

...logically cannot be...

These are your tactics I'm using. Enjoying them?

As for your implication that Rand Paul did, or may have, or appears to have, or is giving you the impression he considered doing, a lack of due care and consideration prior to pronouncing this silliness unconstitutional, I don't see it. I just don't know if you're trolling the place that pops up when one types randpaulforums.com into a browser, or you're just a mite eccentric.

[Invisible Man]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You just repeated Schumer's case. That's not how Rand or I read that Section.

So how about "It has been done before"? Give us a case, and quote relevant text if you have a link.

The best example is the case of Belknap, covered on pages 45 and following here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=286277

[Invisible Man]

Yeah, dude, you made that clear as crystal *rolls eyes*.





These are your tactics I'm using. Enjoying them?

You're quoting those things out of context. I really didn't want that first quote to be taken as my position. I thought I made that clear (please see the rest of the post from which you plucked it). And you're nitpicking on a point that seems entirely beside the point to me. The question here isn't whether or not there are positions that certain powerful people can hold in public life without holding official public office that expose them to the possibility of committing impeachable offenses. To me that's a side question that I only brought up casually, and really don't want to get sidetracked on (I'm fine with coming down on the side of saying there are no such cases if it makes you feel better--but as I said in that post, I had not considered that hypothetical situation). The question here is whether or not someone who beyond any doubt has held an office that exposes them to the possibility of committing impeachable offenses can still be impeached and tried after leaving that office for having committed such offenses while they were in it.

[Brian4Liberty]

The best example is the case of Belknap, covered on pages 45 and following here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=286277

Belknap. Good to see you are up on the latest talking points. And extra points for a link that actually works this time. Minus points for not quoting relevant text.

But I read enough to know that the paper in no way backs up your claims. He says right from the start that the Constitution is not explicit enough and ambiguous, but that he is pushing the post-office impeachment and conviction anyway. That sounds like someone trying to change the interpretation. He tries to rely on precedents and extreme hypotheticals to push for a need for post-office impeachment, but that has no bearing on whether it is Constitutional. It almost seems like he is inferring that if Congress does it, it must be Constitutional, and thereafter, is precedent. He also starts out by saying that the Chief Justice is required, so it's hard to see how this works when the Supreme Court refuses to be involved, as Rand points out.

[Invisible Man]

Belknap. Good to see you are up on the latest talking points. And extra points for a link that actually works this time. Minus points for not quoting relevant text.

But I read enough to know that the paper in no way backs up your claims. He says right from the start that the Constitution is not explicit enough and ambiguous, but that he is pushing the post-office impeachment and conviction anyway. That sounds like someone trying to change the interpretation. He tries to rely on precedents and extreme hypotheticals to push for a need for post-office impeachment, but that has no bearing on whether it is Constitutional. It almost seems like he is inferring that if Congress does it, it must be Constitutional, and thereafter, is precedent. He also starts out by saying that the Chief Justice is required, so it's hard to see how this works when the Supreme Court refuses to be involved, as Rand points out.

That link was the exact same one I posted both other times. I just checked and they all still work for me.

I see it differently from you. That article, as I read it, takes an originalist approach to the Constitution. The historical context of the Constitution is important in interpreting it. And the text of the Constitution itself supports allowing the impeachment of ex-office holders. The ambiguity of it is a point against those who say that the Constitution prohibits it. Such a restriction would need to be made explicit, especially in light of the precedent that already existed at the time the Constitution was ratified.

The later precedent doesn't show that it's constitutional. But it does show that this is not a "new congressional power," which was the claim you made that I was answering.

In fact, in this thread I didn't initially know there was precedent for this. Others asserted that there was not, and I took their word for it until I began researching it. They thought that the lack of precedent was a point in their favor. Now that it's been shown that they were wrong about that, suddenly the precedent is irrelevant.

Thank you for actually checking and interacting with that article. At least someone did.

[Brian4Liberty]

That link was the exact same one I posted both other times. I just checked and they all still work for me.

Your Federalist link at Yale didn't work earlier. Works now. May have been a temp problem at their domain.

I see it differently from you. That article, as I read it, takes an originalist approach to the Constitution. The historical context of the Constitution is important in interpreting it. And the text of the Constitution itself supports allowing the impeachment of ex-office holders. The ambiguity of it is a point against those who say that the Constitution prohibits it. Such a restriction would need to be made explicit, especially in light of the precedent that already existed at the time the Constitution was ratified.

The later precedent doesn't show that it's constitutional. But it does show that this is not a "new congressional power," which was the claim you made that I was answering.

In fact, in this thread I didn't initially know there was precedent for this. Others asserted that there was not, and I took their word for it until I began researching it. They thought that the lack of precedent was a point in their favor. Now that it's been shown that they were wrong about that, suddenly the precedent is irrelevant.

Thank you for actually checking and interacting with that article. At least someone did.

"Such a restriction would need to be made explicit"

I'm sure that many in Congress and government in general would agree (unless it is something they don't want to do). "Unless it is an explicit and specific restriction, there are no restrictions on the power of government!"

But I do see an interesting similarity to this impeachment trial with those who wanted to vote to object to State certified electoral college results. Both are a stretch of the Constitution, in an obviously futile attempt to try to do something that they believe is more important than Constitutional restrictions. The ends justify the means, and it's important to make a political statements. Either you are with them, or you are against them.

Does the Constitution explicitly say that the Congress can not over-turn electoral college votes from the States if they believe that it is important, necessary and something illegal happened?

[Bryan]

To @JoshLowry and @Bryan, how much would it cost to update this forum to be able to embed videos from platforms other than YouTrash? If you do a gofundme I'll donate. If this is open source software I'll donate time to looking into re-configuring the forum software. Thank you and you're welcome.

Thanks for the note, I was able to get some support added for bitchute and rumble without much problem:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...edding-support

[Invisible Man]

I'm sure that many in Congress and government in general would agree (unless it is something they don't want to do). "Unless it is an explicit and specific restriction, there are no restrictions on the power of government!"

That is not the position I'm taking as a general rule. But when it comes to powers that are explicitly given to Congress, in order for them to be restricted to something more limited than the words used, interpreted in accordance with the context, such as would be the case if impeachment were to be restricted only to current office holders, excluding those no longer in office, then that restriction would need to be explicit, or at least implied. But such a restriction of impeachment is not even implied anywhere in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the power to give a sentence that applies to former office holders, and not only current ones, is explicitly given to the Senate in its trying of impeachment cases.

All of the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution include within them all sorts of things that aren't explicitly mentioned, and don't need to be, inasmuch as they are necessary and proper to the exercise of the power that is enumerated.

Granted, even at that, there are bound to be debates about what the enumerated powers do include. And the debate we're having may be an example of one.

In this case, both your position and mine could be seen as the one that restricts government power more, depending on which side you're looking at it from. My position is the one that exposes government officials to the greater degree of accountability for misuse of their power. I sincerely wish more presidents and other office holders would get impeached as a fairly regular thing for a much wider range of offenses than most people think impeachment should be limited to, and believe that if they were it would give them incentive to be less brazen.

Does the Constitution explicitly say that the Congress can not over-turn electoral college votes from the States if they believe that it is important, necessary and something illegal happened?

The 12th Amendment explicitly says something equivalent to that.

That said, the Constitution does give Congress limited power to pass laws that regulate how states choose their electors in the provision that it must guarantee that the states have a Republican form of government, and in relation to the specific demands made in the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. If the Trump allies were serious about the show they put on January 6th, they should use the power the Constitution actually does give them, rather than a power it doesn't, and introduce legislation that would preempt the kinds of illegal selections of electors they're worried about via federal law that includes provisions for dealing with states that try those things. Maybe some have and it hasn't gotten any coverage, I don't know.

[belian78]

Yes i think given the Stephanopoulos interview and now this, it looks like Rand is running for prezzy-prez.

The trick to the system is you have to have consent of the oppressed. Rand is the next little toy in line to keep the 'moderate' right in line and supporting the system. If he were ever to be the person to make real change, you wouldn't be hearing a damn word about him at all.

[jmdrake]

Thanks for the note, I was able to get some support added for bitchute and rumble without much problem:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...edding-support

Thank you so much for doing this! You rock!