Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 154

Thread: SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Drunkenness is Misfeasance.
    But it's not a crime.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    In fact, nobody has even tried to contest one there, not even when a huge swath of the public was sneering at Congress for impeaching Clinton for prevaricating over a simple blow job.

    I wonder why that is? Do you suppose everyone else in the world reads the Constitution and can plainly see that no court has any part of it?
    Perjury is a crime.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You are purposely ignoring the fact that they only ruled that way about process disputes.
    They have not ruled on unconstitutional impeachments without a criminal charge.
    They ruled that they have no jurisdiction about whether or not an impeachment is unconstitutional!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Perjury is a crime.
    Andrew Johnson was impeached over firing someone after Congress passed a law saying that person couldn't be fire. Sure he did't get removed, but neither did Clinton. If he had been removed by the Senate, Johnson would not have had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court because the constitution puts the full authority for impeachment in the Senate. They are the final arbiters! Anything else would undermine the separation of powers. The same separation of powers doctrine you are relying on to argue for presidential immunity prevents the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Immunity is a jurisdictional question. Having immunity doesn't mean an act isn't criminal but that the court doesn't have the authority to rule on that act. Impeachment is an essential check on abuse of power and that check belongs to the Senate, not the Court.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But it's not a crime.
    Yes it is.

    Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance are types of failure to discharge public obligations existing by common law, custom, or statute.
    Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance


    Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power.[1] The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote (Ashby v White).[2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfea..._public_office


    It most certainly qualifies as a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

    And it's a charge where exercising core Constitutional powers would not be one and cannot be made one according to the immunity ruling.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Perjury is a crime.
    That didn't keep the Democrats from trying to get him off on any and every loophole. They're Democrats.

    But they didn't get anywhere with the justices, who could only tell them...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    They ruled that they have no jurisdiction about whether or not an impeachment is unconstitutional!



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors=/=Any or no reason.
    It also doesn't mean core powers which the court just ruled cannot be made criminal.
    It is absurd in the extreme to claim that a President can be impeached for using the powers the Constitution gives him.
    You aren't making Congress a coequal branch, you are making it a supreme branch which can prevent the President from using his core Constitutional powers.
    POTUS is not a Prime Minister serving at the whim of a parliament as its servant, he is an independently elected coequal branch of government.

    Drunkenness is Misfeasance.
    No. It's absurd in the extreme to claim that the privilege of immunity that keeps someone from being criminally prosecuted also prevents that person from being removed from office. Republicans know this. Biden cannot be prosecuted for inaction on the border but he could be impeached over that. The 2/3rds requirement means he absolutely wouldn't be removed for it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Andrew Johnson was impeached over firing someone after Congress passed a law saying that person couldn't be fire. Sure he did't get removed, but neither did Clinton. If he had been removed by the Senate, Johnson would not have had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court because the constitution puts the full authority for impeachment in the Senate. They are the final arbiters! Anything else would undermine the separation of powers. The same separation of powers doctrine you are relying on to argue for presidential immunity prevents the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Immunity is a jurisdictional question. Having immunity doesn't mean an act isn't criminal but that the court doesn't have the authority to rule on that act. Impeachment is an essential check on abuse of power and that check belongs to the Senate, not the Court.
    And SCOTUS just ruled Congress can't pass a law like that.
    Johnson most certainly would have had the right to appeal to SCOTUS and if they ruled like SCOTUS just did they would have said the impeachment was unconsitutional.
    The Constitution put the full authority of impeachment in the hands of Congress FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, and SCOTUS just ruled that exercising core powers can't be made a crime by Congress.
    Your position undermines the separation of powers by allowing Congress to restrict the President's Constitutional powers and to do it without an Amendment.
    We are not discussing the immunity part of the ruling, we are discussing the part that says Congress can't criminalize the Constitutional powers of the President.
    Impeachment FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is an essential check that belongs to Congress, not impeachment for any or no reason, nor criminalizing the Constitutional powers of the other branches.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    No. It's absurd in the extreme to claim that the privilege of immunity that keeps someone from being criminally prosecuted also prevents that person from being removed from office. Republicans know this. Biden cannot be prosecuted for inaction on the border but he could be impeached over that. The 2/3rds requirement means he absolutely wouldn't be removed for it.
    Too bad I'm not claiming that, I'm only claiming that you can't remove from office for reasons not listed in the Constitution.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Impeachment is an essential check on abuse of power and that check belongs to the Senate, not the Court.
    As well it should, as it's neither a criminal case which could land someone in jail nor a civil case petitioning for restitution, so it doesn't have anything to do with what the Judicial Branch was created to do. It's just firing someone.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    That didn't keep the Democrats from trying to get him off on any and every loophole. They're Democrats.

    But they didn't get anywhere with the justices, who could only tell them...
    That's not what they ruled, jmdrake is distorting the ruling.
    They only ruled that they could not judge whether the process used in an impeachment was Constitutional or not.
    The Constitution doesn't specify a process for the Senate to use, but it most specifically specifies what ground may be used for impeachment.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    As well it should, as it's neither a criminal case which could land someone in jail nor a civil case petitioning for restitution, so it doesn't have anything to do with what the Judicial Branch was created to do. It's just firing someone.
    It's firing someone FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, not for any or no reason.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes it is.

    Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance are types of failure to discharge public obligations existing by common law, custom, or statute.
    Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance
    He doesn't understand the difference between offices created by statute, and statutes making specific abuses of that office criminal acts. The former are common; the latter are rare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power.[1] The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote (Ashby v White).[2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfea..._public_office
    He also still doesn't get the difference between criminal and civil court.

    I don't know how else to explain it.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He doesn't understand the difference between offices created by statute, and statutes making specific abuses of that office criminal acts. The former are common; the latter are rare.



    He also still doesn't get the difference between criminal and civil court.

    I don't know how else to explain it.
    You don't understand the difference between High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Misdemeanors covers the civil part of common law involved here) and policy disputes/unconstituional attempts to criminalize core Constitutional powers.

    Misfeasance in office would be a High Misdemeanor.

    And in the cited case about SCOTUS and impeachment nobody made the argument that the charge was not Constitutionally valid, so whether it was or not that aspect of impeachment has not been ruled on.
    But we all know that the Misfeasance of Drunkenness would have been ruled a valid High Misdemeanor.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Misfeasance in office would be a High Misdemeanor.
    Stop making it obvious you're talking out of your ass and quote the federal statute.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Stop making it obvious you're talking out of your ass and quote the federal statute.
    It's common law.

    Examples of judicial misconduct include but are not limited to the following: rude, abusive and improper treatment of lawyers, witnesses, jurors, court staff or others, showing bias toward anyone in the courtroom based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc., and sleeping or drunkenness or other improper conduct while on the bench. Judicial misconduct also may include improper off-the-bench conduct such as: criminal behavior, improper use of a judge’s authority, publicly commenting on a pending or expected court case, communicating with only one party in a proceeding or court case unless permitted by law, and giving or receiving bribes or favors.

    https://cjdt.dc.gov/node/603922

    But there are statutes too:

    28 U.S. Code Chapter 16 - COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...t-I/chapter-16

    You must allege that a federal judge has committed misconduct or is disabled, as defined in the Act. “Misconduct” is “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” A “disability” is a temporary or permanent condition, either mental or physical, that makes the judge “unable to discharge all the duties” of the judicial office.
    Examples of judicial misconduct may include the following:

    • using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives;
    • accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office;
    • engaging in improper ex parte communications with parties or counsel for one side in a case;
    • engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements;
    • soliciting funds for organizations;
    • violating rules or standards pertaining to restrictions on outside income or knowlingly violating requirements for financial disclosure;
    • engaging in unwanted, offensive, or abusive sexual conduct, including sexual harassment or assault;
    • treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, or others in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner;
    • creating a hostile work environment for judicial employees;
    • intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, gender entity, pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, or disability;
    • retaliating against complainants, witnesses, judicial employees, or others for participating in the judicial conduct and disability complaint process, or for reporting or disclosing judicial misconduct or disability;
    • refusing, without good cause shown, to cooperate in the investigation of a judicial conduct or disability complaint or enforcement of a decision under the Rules; and
    • failing to call to the attention of the relevant district chief judge or circuit chief judge any reliable information reasonably likely to constitute judicial misconduct or disability.

    This list does not include all the possible grounds for a complaint.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_misconduct

    Drunkenness = disability.

    Misdeameanor means misconduct.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But there are statutes too:

    28 U.S. Code Chapter 16 - COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...t-I/chapter-16

    You must allege that a federal judge has committed misconduct or is disabled, as defined in the Act. ďMisconduct&#8221...
    You think this statute makes it a crime, a criminal offense, a high crime or misdemeanor to become disabled.

    Wrong yet again.



    Trying to throw people in prison for being disabled, yet can't figure out why nobody wants to live in his Brave New World.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 07-09-2024 at 05:19 AM.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You think this statute makes it a crime, a criminal offense, a high crime or misdemeanor to become disabled.

    Wrong yet again.



    Trying to throw people in prison for being disabled, yet can't figure out why nobody wants to live in his Brave New World.
    Nice violins you have there, too bad they stick out like a lightbulb to let people know you are using propaganda not facts.

    This is about impeachment not prison.
    If someone has a disability (voluntary like drunkenness or involuntary) that keeps the person from performing his office properly he can and must be removed.

    The charge of drunkenness was a High Misdemeanor.
    Exercising core powers the SCOTUS said can't be criminalized is not a High Crime Or Misdemeanor.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You don't understand the difference between High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Misdemeanors covers the civil part of common law involved here) and policy disputes/unconstituional attempts to criminalize core Constitutional powers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Nice violins you have there, too bad they stick out like a lightbulb to let people know you are using propaganda not facts.

    This is about impeachment not prison.
    If someone has a disability (voluntary like drunkenness or involuntary) that keeps the person from performing his office properly he can and must be removed.

    The charge of drunkenness was a High Misdemeanor.
    Exercising core powers the SCOTUS said can't be criminalized is not a High Crime Or Misdemeanor.
    What is a misdemeanor? Is a misdemeanor no longer a crime, as it suits you to redefine it for the convenience of the moment? Or is a misdemeanor a crime, just as it has always been?

    What is a trombone? Is a trombone now a violin, as it suits you to redefine it for the convenience of the moment? Or is a trombone a brass horn with no strings attached, just as it has always been?

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    What is a misdemeanor? Is a misdemeanor no longer a crime, as it suits you to redefine it for the convenience of the moment? Or is a misdemeanor a crime, just as it has always been?

    What is a trombone? Is a trombone now a violin, as it suits you to redefine it for the convenience of the moment? Or is a trombone a brass horn with no strings attached, just as it has always been?
    Misdemeanor by itself in the modern usage is a lesser crime, but that's not what it meant when the Constitution was written, it meant misconduct, such as nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasence.
    High Crimes and Misdemeanors means misconduct in office and can include crimes and misconduct.
    Exercising core Constitutional powers is not misconduct.

    The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
    United Kingdom

    The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge.[1][2] One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that because he failed to pay a ransom for Ghent, the city fell to the French.

    More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_c...d_misdemeanors
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    wikipedia
    You do have a big appetite for fake news.

    So, an impeachment in England in 1386 feels relevant to you, does it? That's nice.

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You do have a big appetite for fake news.

    So, an impeachment in England in 1386 feels relevant to you, does it? That's nice.
    US common law is based on English common law.
    An impeachment in England in 1386 is absolutely relevant.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    There's only one absolute in this world: Partisans will absolutely consider anything that they think might advance them toward their goals relevant, and anything else irrelevant. Any other consideration -- including actual relevance, and their own credibility -- doesn't even pop up on partisan radar.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    There's only one absolute in this world: Partisans will absolutely consider anything that they think might advance them toward their goals relevant, and anything else irrelevant. Any other consideration -- including actual relevance, and their own credibility -- doesn't even pop up on partisan radar.
    You just described yourself.
    The Founders limited impeachment to a defined common law term, but being leftist you think that "impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "Any or no reason"

    Your view of the Constitution as a living document in defiance of originalism just exposes how much of a leftist you are and your willingness to bend anything in the Constitution to your agenda.
    Your position is no different than claiming that wheat grown on a family farm and consumed there (not even sold inside the state) is "interstate commerce" because the family now doesn't buy wheat that MAY have been brought across state lines. (or maybe they would only have bought from their neighbor intrastate)
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #115

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You just described yourself.
    The Founders limited impeachment to a defined common law term, but being leftist you think that "impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "Any or no reason"

    Your view of the Constitution as a living document in defiance of originalism just exposes how much of a leftist you are and your willingness to bend anything in the Constitution to your agenda.
    Your position is no different than claiming that wheat grown on a family farm and consumed there (not even sold inside the state) is "interstate commerce" because the family now doesn't buy wheat that MAY have been brought across state lines. (or maybe they would only have bought from their neighbor intrastate)
    The founders also gave the Senate sole authority on impeachment! And just because a president may have immunity for something that is normally a crime does not mean it is not a crime! It just means he can't be held criminally liable for it but it does not mean he can't be removed from office! "Leftists" are already using your twisted logic to advocate for Biden to assassinate Donald Trump. Is that the world you really want to live in?



    I take solace in the fact that even if assassination of a U.S. citizen without trial, what Obama already did to Anwar Al Awlaki, even if the president couldn't be criminally charged he could at least be impeached. (And I think assassination of a presidential nominee whom the Court has already declared must be allowed on the ballot is legally distinguishable from assassinating someone accused of terrorism, but the original AUMF for the GWOT did not included Yemen.)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The founders also gave the Senate sole authority on impeachment! And just because a president may have immunity for something that is normally a crime does not mean it is not a crime! It just means he can't be held criminally liable for it but it does not mean he can't be removed from office! "Leftists" are already using your twisted logic to advocate for Biden to assassinate Donald Trump. Is that the world you really want to live in?



    I take solace in the fact that even if assassination of a U.S. citizen without trial, what Obama already did to Anwar Al Awlaki, even if the president couldn't be criminally charged he could at least be impeached. (And I think assassination of a presidential nominee whom the Court has already declared must be allowed on the ballot is legally distinguishable from assassinating someone accused of terrorism, but the original AUMF for the GWOT did not included Yemen.)
    Leftist poppycock, assassinating an American citizen would be malfeasance (a high crime or misdemeanor), assassinating citizens is not a core Constitutional power of the executive branch.

    And the Senate has full power of trying the impeachment, neither they nor the House may redefine what POTUS can be impeached for.
    In fact, the House stage is the place where an "any or no cause" impeachment should be challenged, that would completely negate the twisted Senate full power to try argument.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Leftist poppycock, assassinating an American citizen would be malfeasance (a high crime or misdemeanor), assassinating citizens is not a core Constitutional power of the executive branch.
    But the executive does oversee the DOJ, and capital punishment wasn't exactly uncommon back when the document was written. So that statement hinges entirely on the difference between the definition of "execution" and "assassination".

    No doubt you're using your own definitions. But I have never agreed with your definition of any word in the language.

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And the Senate has full power of trying the impeachment, neither they nor the House may redefine what POTUS can be impeached for.
    Your insurmountable problem is that SCOTUS will not review the actions of the Senate; the Nixon case makes that quite clear, and your attempt to distinguish it by the fact that the case dealt with a procedural issue is unavailing. From the Nixon decision:

    A controversy is nonjusticiable-i. e., involves a political question-where there is "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it .... " Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962)...

    In this case, we must examine Art. I, ß 3, cl. 6, to determine the scope of authority conferred upon the Senate by the Framers regarding impeachment. It provides:

    "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:

    And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

    The language and structure of this Clause are revealing. The first sentence is a grant of authority to the Senate, and the word "sole" indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else....

    Petitioner devotes only two pages in his brief to negating the significance of the word "sole" in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that "[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." We think that the word "sole" is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word "sole" appears only one other time in the Constitution-with respect to the House of Representatives' "sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, ß 2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The commonsense meaning of the word "sole" is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. "Sole" is defined as "having no companion," "solitary," "being the only one," and "functioning ... independently and without assistance or interference." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body "tried" an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning ... independently and without assistance or interference."...

    The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment provisions support our reading of the constitutional language. The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers. See 290 U. S. App. D. C., at 424, 938 F. 2d, at 243; R. Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 116 (1973). This silence is quite meaningful in light of the several explicit references to the availability of judicial review as a check on the Legislature's power with respect to bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and statutes. See The Federalist No. 78, p. 524 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) ("Limitations ... can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice")...

    In addition to the textual commitment argument, we are persuaded that the lack of finality and the difficulty of fashioning relief counsel against justiciability. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S., at 210. We agree with the Court of Appeals that opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos." 290 U. S. App. D. C., at 427, 938 F. 2d, at 246. This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated. Equally uncertain is the question of what relief a court may give other than simply setting aside the judgment of conviction. Could it order the reinstatement of a convicted federal judge, or order Congress to create an additional judgeship if the seat had been filled in the interim? (emphasis added)
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In fact, the House stage is the place where an "any or no cause" impeachment should be challenged, that would completely negate the twisted Senate full power to try argument.
    This is one of the safeguards the Court pointed out:

    ...Nixon argues that judicial review is necessary in order to place a check on the Legislature. Nixon fears that if the Senate is given unreviewable authority to interpret the Impeachment Trial Clause, there is a grave risk that the Senate will usurp judicial power. The Framers anticipated this objection and created two constitutional safeguards to keep the Senate in check. The first safeguard is that the whole of the impeachment power is divided between the two legislative bodies, with the House given the right to accuse and the Senate given the right to judge. Id., No. 66, at 446. This split of authority "avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches." The second safeguard is the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement. Hamilton explained that "[a]s the concurrence of two-thirds of the senate will be requisite to a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire." Ibid.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Leftist poppycock, assassinating an American citizen would be malfeasance (a high crime or misdemeanor), assassinating citizens is not a core Constitutional power of the executive branch.
    But being the commander in chief is a core Constitutional power of the executive branch. And people are killed in war without a trial all the time. The whole point of immunity is to protect someone from prosecution of a crime. Bill Cosby was promised immunity from prosecution in order to get him to testify in a civil trial against him. That doesn't mean what he was accused of doing wasn't a crime.

    And the Senate has full power of trying the impeachment, neither they nor the House may redefine what POTUS can be impeached for.
    In fact, the House stage is the place where an "any or no cause" impeachment should be challenged, that would completely negate the twisted Senate full power to try argument.
    The only person redefining anything is you. You are pretending that being immune from prosecution for a crime means that it wasn't a crime in the first place and therefore one can't be impeached either. That's just utter nonsense.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 07-11-2024 at 06:25 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 112
    Last Post: 07-01-2024, 01:44 PM
  2. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 04-26-2024, 10:14 AM
  3. Qualified Immunity goes to SCOTUS via attack on James King.
    By unknown in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-22-2020, 09:53 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2013, 01:43 PM
  5. **Official** LibertyPAC Presidents Day Money Bomb Thread
    By UtahApocalypse in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 285
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •