Reply With Quote
You really don't know that a person need not be holding office to be impeached?
And you tried to talk me on not knowing Cons utional law well enough to engage me, just the other day.
K
Not really. Anything else?Obama can still be impeached.
You really don't know that a person need not be holding office to be impeached?
And you tried to talk me on not knowing Cons utional law well enough to engage me, just the other day.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 11-01-2020 at 02:15 AM.
Article II, Section 4 provides:You really don't know that a person need not be holding office to be impeached?
And you tried to talk me on not knowing Cons utional law well enough to engage me, just the other day.
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.
Any other questions?
Too late derp
What's your point?
Not at all. You're wrong. I just wasn't eager to argue this in the margins.Too late derp
The Cons ution clearly states who is subject to impeachment and what's the penalty for impeachment (removal from office, disqualification from holding federal office in the future).
Nothing I've said so far in my previous posts is wrong or really arguable. I'm sure there are 'creative' interpretations of cons utional law in the matter, but none of which have actually been tested.
All the 20 impeachments in US history involved Presidents, a Senator, judges at different levels, or cabinet members.
Yup, no restriction stating that a person must currently be holding office to be impeached.The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Yes really.
[smug ] Not wrong; not even arguable. [/smug ] : A person can be impeached at any federal office level. You conveniently take the positions that have garnered impeachment and obfuscate a text that just isn't there. A dude in federal mail room could be impeached. But it simply isn't going to be realistic for the House to dig that low.
"In the 1870s, Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached on charges of corruption and bribery. He resigned his cabinet post before the House could actually vote to impeach him, but the House went ahead and impeached him anyway. There was a lengthy debate in the Senate over whether it had the power to put Belknap on trial for the charges brought by the House, since Belknap had resigned. In the end the trial went forward, but Belknap fell short of the 2/3 majority needed for conviction even though the evidence of his corruption was clear; most of the Senators who voted against conviction did so because they believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to try him now that he was out of office. But the fact that he was impeached and put on trial after resigning nevertheless could serve as a precedent for doing so to someone else again in the future."
-William Murphy - Professor of American History
No, not really. Go ahead, make your point.
Exactly. Let's pretend the trial did go through. The penalty was removal from office, which he already did by resigning. Thus, why the impeachment was, for all intents and purposes, null and void.
It must be in order to start impeachment proceedings. And, as I stated, the House starts that process.
Okay, the House starts the process. That doesn't put a restriction on a person having to be currently holding office to be impeached.
BTW, William Belknap was a cabinet member when the impeachment proceeding started. He resigned before the House voted to send it to trial to the Senate.
Being banned from holding future office is not "null and void".
Stop flailing about and admit you were wrong.
I'll give you that the Cons ution is vague on what a "civil Officers of the United States" is.
However, impeaching a non-member of government would be a first. Thus why I mentioned 'creative' interpretations of the Cons ution.
Again, on logic alone, the penalty of impeachment is removal from office and inability to have a federal job again. If you're not holding office, there's nothing to remove. The only caveat would be precluding from holding a federal job again.
You say exactly like he's proving your point rather than ting on it.
It's not null and void. I'd have to see the wording of the impeachment as to whether it prohibits him from having that position or all federal positions. That's significant because if it's the latter, it stops him from slithering back into govt. And if it's the former, it prevents him from reattaining his post. In either event, many members of Congress thought he was so de able that they went through with the impeachment.
By your argumentation, there would be no need to have went through with impeachment proceedings. But your argument is wrong, as this case shows.
He was a member of government when his impeachment proceeding started. Period.
Impeaching a citizen not holding office would be a first. Sorry, history doesn't agree with you.
What you're obviating is that he was a member of government when impeachment proceedings started. He didn't quit before then, he quick AFTER the proceedings against him started, but before the vote.You say exactly like he's proving your point rather than ting on it.
It's not null and void. I'd have to see the wording of the impeachment as to whether it prohibits him from having that position or all federal positions. That's significant because if it's the latter, it stops him from slithering back into govt. And if it's the former, it prevents him from reattaining his post. In either event, many members of Congress thought he was so de able that they went through with the impeachment.
By your argumentation, there would be no need to have went through with impeachment proceedings. But your argument is wrong, as this case shows.
Thus the notion you can impeach a non-member of government is indeed a 'creative' interpretation of the Cons ution.
I admit that in that particular case it was not null and void.
However, I'm also pretty sure I'm correct about who can be impeached, and Obama could not be, unless he becomes part of Biden's government.
Biden himself couldn't be either, unless he wins.
Belknap no longer held a position in government and he was still being impeached.
What is the point of impeachment? To keep corrupt individuals out of government. That is the endgame. If the concern rises to that level of needing to keep a person out, then the impeachment power is there. No restriction on holding office is in place as Belknap found out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions