son of witless

First, how can you Impeach someone not in office ? Second the Supreme Court Chief Justice will not preside over this second Impeachment. The Constitution says he must preside. Our Liberal brothers on OPP have of late reacquainted themselves with the Constitution, a document they habitually disrespect. Maybe they should call in that expert on the Constitution, Barak the Obama ?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/impeachment-article-senate-house/index.html

roy

Well the Supreme Court will decide want they,never in history have we ever had a person ,that has tryed everything in his power to overturn an e******n by hook and crook. And as more information keeps coming out about how far he went to over turn the e******n ,every person in our country should be apaulled..

son of witless

I realize that the law and the Constitution are merely suggestions to liberals, but we real Americans believe you still must follow them. Unless you are a Democrat.

Gatsby

Look at the other side, with this precedent we can still impeach obuma for crossfire hurricane, and the

charge will be TREASON!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/2nd-trump-impeachment-trial-chief-203156850.html

The article covers possibilities open to interpretation

From the article...

"Sources tell ABC News that it will be up to congressional leadership to make the final decision. They could invite Chief Justice John Roberts, who presided over Trump's first Senate impeachment trial, to return to the largely ceremonial role, or they could look elsewhere."

"In (Chief) Roberts' absence, the responsibility to preside may fall to Vice President Kamala Harris, as incoming president of the Senate, or to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, as president pro tempore, according to experts."

son of witless

What goes around comes around. Democrats invented the nuclear option and later the Republicans used it against them. I hope history repeats itself.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/5-years-after-going-nuclear-democrats-have-reaped-what-they-sowed

son of witless

You do not surprise me at all. The United States Constitution is written in plain English. Unfortunately a bunch of English impaired Liberal Judges have for decades interpreted that plain English to mean what it does not mean and was never meant to mean.

I would never ever enter into a contract with a Liberal. It would not be worth the slime it is printed on. I know you and Bad Bob and Kevyn do not care.

EL Loc: Massachusetts

Unless......he was right!
And I wouldn't trust a Democrat to do anything right unless it was stealing our money.

son of witless

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

[quote=son of witless]You do not surprise me at all.

Nor you, me, with your unbridled and unwarranted arrogance.

"The U.S. Constitution says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court "shall preside" over trials of the President of the United States, but it does not specify what happens if the president has left office. No ex-president has ever faced a Senate trial.

Last week, in a memo to Senate Republicans obtained by the Washington Post, McConnell expressed some doubt about Roberts' participation, writing: “Whether the Chief Justice would actually preside over the trial after President Trump ceases to be President on January 20, however, is unclear," he said.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Hi Slatten, I guess we will have to wait and see because as you stated, the article covers possibilities open to interpretation. My interpretation (which, of course, means nothing) is that Article 1, Section 3 ofThe Constitution is very explicit about it being only the Chief Justice who presides over the proceedings. I don't think Harris or Leahy or anyone else can preside unless, maybe, all interested and involved parties agreed in advance. But when has that ever stopped anyone?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The key, according to the above article/excerpts from it, is that Mr. Trump is no longer the president, thus possibly losing The Chief Justice in the largely ceremonial role of presiding over the impeachment. But, we shall see, Tuck.

"In Roberts' absence, the responsibility to preside may fall to Vice President Kamala Harris, as incoming president of the Senate, or to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, as president pro tempore, according to experts."

University of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, a leading constitutional scholar, has also been making the case that the chief justice is the best choice and one authorized by the Constitution.

"The question should be whether the impeached officer was president at the time of impeachment. Here, he was, so Roberts presides," Vladeck wrote on Twitter.

"And if it seems odd to you that the Constitution doesn't speak to this scenario, here's a better one: Who presides over the trial if the *Vice President* is impeached?" he continued. "IF NOTHING ELSE, IT'S AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW AMBIGUOUS SO MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTION IS (and always has been)."

"Some Republicans, including former federal appellate judge Michael Luttig, have argued that a Senate impeachment trial for a former president is entirely unconstitutional and, therefore, that Roberts should have no role."

(All excerpts came from the link above, in my first posting)

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

And the purpose of impeachment is to remove the President from office. Questionable if it can also be used after he is out of the office to remove his pension and ability to ever serve in government again. I believe it was attempted before with a judge? Art. 1, Sec. 3 goes on to say, "...the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. So it seems that the aim is to convict for the previous reasons mentioned and then let the rest be handled by the legal system. Interesting times! I tend to agree with Judge Michael Luttig, however, but it's not my decision to make and is definitely above my pay grade. My prediction is either a trial will not take place or, if one does, there will be no conviction. Wait and see.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Agreed, on all points you made. Again, new legal/judicial ground is being broken. Of note is that impeachment was v**ed on near the end of his term, but papers were not officially served until after Trump left office. Indeed, we shall see.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Any idea how long Articles of Impeachment can be sat on and languish before the Senate has to make a decision to take some sort of action?

The Republicans could slow down the entire process with a long long line of witnesses and tie up the Senate's time so that nothing gets done. That would probably piss-off a lot of people and isn't a very good strategy in my estimation.

If Biden really wants unity he should come out and tell his party to drop this case.