Reply With Quote
Not really. A guilty verdict by the Senate means removal, which is the actual point of impeachment. The keeping them away from federal office in the future is actually optional, and a separate vote from conviction.
Based on nothing but your feelings. No restriction is in place to stop him from being impeached tomorrow if impeachable offenses are determined.
Not really. A guilty verdict by the Senate means removal, which is the actual point of impeachment. The keeping them away from federal office in the future is actually optional, and a separate vote from conviction.
Nope, as I already explained, you have to be holding office when impeachment proceedings start. Per the Cons ution you seemingly know and love so much.
Like I said, show me an impeachment proceeding started on a private citizen. I'll wait.
He already self-removed. I read about this a couple years back in Chernow's biography on him; but I don't remember all the details now. Apparently Belknap was such a sh** head that they impeached to keep him out for good. I hazily remember that it would went through except for something or other. Wish I remember; it was a good story. Either way; this shows the practical value of impeaching someone not in government.
I think your problem is you're worried about your heroes being impeached before or after the fact. You shouldn't worry though; the cowards in Congress don't want to go down that road. Too many of them will find themselves out on their asses if they start getting super moral like that. You should wish they had/do though. Impeachments of Hillary/Joe could've saved the Democrat Party from themselves. Instead, you're stuck with sh** for dinner.
Sure. Belknap. He was a private citizen after his resignation. But that's really of no matter. There's still no prohibition listed in the Cons ution on doing it. Any eligible office holder can be impeached if they've committed the applicable offenses.
There was never any doubt Belknap was extremely corrupt. But he was in government when impeachment proceedings were started on him.
Obama is not my hero, sorry to disappoint you. Now point me to one instance, in the long history of the US, and the 20 impeachment processes so far, when any of them were started on a private citizen.
And that is of no consequence to the Cons utionality of it all. That is just something you're trying to apply. Again, nothing in the Cons ution that hamstrings the House into only impeaching someone who has served.
Well, for whatever reason you are very protective to a point that you're making up conditions / parameters that are not there. So, I think there's more #StillWithWhomever than you're willing to admit.
Says who? I actually quoted the Cons ution. It clearly states all civil Officers of the United States. That's not a private citizen.
Now, you can argue somebody can have a creative interpretation of that to include private citizens, but it would be a first.
What parameters are not there? You claim private citizens not holding office can be impeached. I'm asking you to provide me with one, just one impeachment proceeding that backs up that contention in the long history of this country.
You won't find it, and there's a reason you will not.
Yes, in a separate article/section from the one that states the House has the power to impeach, it says cir stances in which civil officers may be impeached. That is still not a prohibition of a non office holder from being impeached. Not at all.
And I already named Belknap. Your argument is that he had held office. Well, he was still a private citizen at that point and not an office holder. By your logic, he was no longer applicable to be impeached. He was NOT a civil officer at that point.
I actually quoted the section that clearly stipulates who can be impeached. Again, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.
The whole argument is illogical and stupid. If Obama goes back to government, then he automatically becomes impeachable. So what's the point?
Article? Section?
Bellknap. Was no longer an officer and was a private citizen. Or are you arguing that he somehow wasn't a private citizen following his resignation?
The point is to tell corrupt persons who may seek office that they're no longer worthy of conducting the affairs of the American people. It's a very strong point if you think about it.
When the House started impeachment against him, he was Secretary of War. Those proceedings would not have started against him if he was not a government official (ie: a private citizen).
His resignation came AFTER impeachment proceedings started against him, but before the House actually voted to put him on trial via the senate.
Never argued otherwise.
Article II Section IV just stipulates the misdeeds for which those specific higheste officers shall be removed. It does nothing to diminish the powers of the House to diminish the House's power of impeachment granted in Article 1, Section 2.
Belknap was a private citizen by virtue of his resignation. He was still impeached.
This was done as there's no prohibition on impeaching a private citizen.
Somewhat counterintuitive, wonder what the calculation is here.
You really don't understand this, Pakman?
Ohio is supposed to be Trump by at least 4-5 points.
It'll be 7-12 points; but either way Biden doesn't have a chance there.Ohio is supposed to be Trump by at least 4-5 points.
Keep trying, tranny.
what's your gloss?
Biden is winning no hearts and minds with his coffee shop greets and in fact doing damage in many cases.
Going to Ohio is just a sad attempt to psych out Repubs / get the soy boy left pumped up.
Called it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions