I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.
Advertisement
by Telconi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:28 pm
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:32 pm
Telconi wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Two crimes are mentioned as ground for impeachment.
The impeachment clause says the President SHALL be removed on impeachment and conviction.
But it does not say the President SHALL be impeached for the commission of a crime (presumably proven some other way) or the other things.
If it did say that, I think I'd agree that impeachment replaces regular prosecution, and maybe even grants immunity for "lesser" crimes.
He shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction, but he hasn't been convicted.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:32 pm
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:33 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Telconi wrote:
He shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction, but he hasn't been convicted.
My point is that the Congress isn't required to impeach under any circumstances.
Suppose he commits treason, no doubt about it, I'd rather he be tried in a court and imprisoned for 20 to 50 years. Whether or not he serves out his time as President (that's up to the Congress), he should do just as much time as I would if I committed the crime.
by San Lumen » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:34 pm
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:San Lumen wrote:Says who?
That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.Telconi wrote:
I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.
Are you debating yourself, then?
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:35 pm
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:San Lumen wrote:Says who?
That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.
by San Lumen » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:36 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.
Well that's just great.
Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.
by Telconi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:36 pm
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:San Lumen wrote:Says who?
That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.Telconi wrote:
I don't, your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility to rectify.
Are you debating yourself, then?
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:42 pm
San Lumen wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.
Are you debating yourself, then?
So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:43 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.
Well that's just great.
Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.
Telconi wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.
Are you debating yourself, then?
Nobody is debating.
San Lumen wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Well that's just great.
Trump has probably committed some crimes, in office, we just don't know about yet. And once he's out I hope that interpretation of the constitution is put to a serious test.
That's if he loses in November. The statue of limitations runs out on a lot of things come next January.
San Lumen wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:That’s what a legal opinion is, in essence.
And I happen to agree with the opinion. Impeachment would not make sense without immunity, and the Federalist Papers imply as much. I think it’s stupid, but that does not mean that’s not the system in the constitution. It just makes the constitution faulty in that regard.
Are you debating yourself, then?
So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.
by San Lumen » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:44 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:San Lumen wrote:So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:44 pm
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:San Lumen wrote:So if the Senate decided they wouldnt convict even if Trump assaulted Secret Service and threatened staff with a gun so be it? Your effectively declaring the President above the law.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:44 pm
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
My point is that the Congress isn't required to impeach under any circumstances.
Suppose he commits treason, no doubt about it, I'd rather he be tried in a court and imprisoned for 20 to 50 years. Whether or not he serves out his time as President (that's up to the Congress), he should do just as much time as I would if I committed the crime.
You can try in a regular court after impeachment.
by San Lumen » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:45 pm
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What if Trump loses in November? He'll still be President for a couple of months, but with nothing to lose. He might literally shoot someone, hell he might nuke someone. And all we could do about it is remove him a few weeks early (and ban him from running again, which he wouldn't anyway).
And prosecute him. Since we can prosecute after he leaves office.
by Telconi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:46 pm
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:50 pm
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:50 pm
Telconi wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Well that's some consolation. Precedent says the next President will pardon him and the trial will be abandoned. But maybe not for serious and common crimes.
Yeah, I doubt that having your predecessor arrested is a good idea going forward. That would be a hell of a transition.
by Telconi » Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:01 pm
by Fahran » Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:20 pm
Telconi wrote:Given how quickly Iraq is devolving into an Iranian puppet state, they sure as shit are.
by West Leas Oros 2 » Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:22 pm
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by Gormwood » Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:29 pm
by Northern Davincia » Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:39 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Duvniask, Einsiev, Gnark, Kubra, Sarduri, Spirit of Hope, Statesburg, Stellar Colonies, The New York Nation, Tiami
Advertisement