Rand puts a nail in the coffin on second impeachment attempt.

[jmdrake]

What is the reason for thinking the trial is unconstitutional?

Not bad for a traitor prone to dereliction of duty, eh?



Where in the Constitution is there a provision for impeaching private citizens, again?

Quotes, please.

LOL. Only at RPF can a thread about a boss move showing how Rand destroyed the substance of the Dems impeachment article can it turn into a debate about an obscure constitutional issue.

Anyhow....

1) Trump was still president when he was impeached as impeachment is done in the House and it occurred prior to Biden being sworn in.

2) There is precedent for an impeachment trial occurring after someone had already left office.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/can-senate-hold-impeachment-trial-after-presidents-term

Now, since that trial resulted in an acquittal, it's an open question as to what the court would do if someone out of office was "convicted" and then there was a vote to bar him from future office. But...none of that matters because Rand is a boss.

 

[Invisible Man]

LOL. Only at RPF can a thread about a boss move showing how Rand destroyed the substance of the Dems impeachment article can it turn into a debate about an obscure constitutional issue.

Anyhow....

1) Trump was still president when he was impeached as impeachment is done in the House and it occurred prior to Biden being sworn in.

2) There is precedent for an impeachment trial occurring after someone had already left office.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/can-senate-hold-impeachment-trial-after-presidents-term

Now, since that trial resulted in an acquittal, it's an open question as to what the court would do if someone out of office was "convicted" and then there was a vote to bar him from future office. But...none of that matters because Rand is a boss.

Good post.

I think that you probably got to the point of why people got so upset with me in the thread. It was an opportunity to talk up Rand that I missed. So maybe that was my big faux pas more than anything else.

I'm always interested in looking at the other side of things. It's within the realm of possibility that the shoe will be on the other foot one day, and Rand and the Republicans may want to impeach and convict a Democrat office holder after they've left office, and if that day comes his history of saying that it's unconstitutional could come back to bite him. Also, for me, even more than that, is the basic question of, "Is it really unconstitutional?" If it's not unconstitutional, then I would want to refrain from saying it is.

 

[jmdrake]

Good post.

I think that you probably got to the point of why people got so upset with me in the thread. It was an opportunity to talk up Rand that I missed. So maybe that was my big faux pas more than anything else.

I'm always interested in looking at the other side of things. It's within the realm of possibility that the shoe will be on the other foot one day, and Rand and the Republicans may want to impeach and convict a Democrat office holder after they've left office, and if that day comes his history of saying that it's unconstitutional could come back to bite him. Also, for me, even more than that, is the basic question of, "Is it really unconstitutional?" If it's not unconstitutional, then I would want to refrain from saying it is.

Hey. Ya can't hang around this place for more than a year and not be or become a constitution nerd.

 

[acptulsa]

Hey. Ya can't hang around this place for more than a year and not be or become a constitution nerd.

Damn it, that's not why this more perfect forum was ordained and established!

 

[TheTexan]

It's within the realm of possibility that the shoe will be on the other foot one day, and Rand and the Republicans may want to impeach and convict a Democrat office holder after they've left office, and if that day comes his history of saying that it's unconstitutional could come back to bite him.

I don't think you understand how Rand works. To him, the Constitution doesn't change its meaning depending on whether the person in question is a Republican or Democrat.

He's funny that way.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't think you understand how Rand works. To him, the Constitution doesn't change its meaning depending on whether the person in question is a Republican or Democrat.

He's funny that way.

You must spread some reputation to the other 49 states before you send any more south.

 

[Ender]

As far as I know, I have never done that. If I ever do and it's pointed out to me, I'll try to correct it.

And even when I disagree with others (which is part of what discussions like we have at forums like this are for), it's never a fight. At least not from my end.

I plead guilty to coming to the defense of Sola Fide and Zippy though. I always liked both of them and thought they were unfairly treated. I don't consider them trolls.

I don't always agree with you but I definitely agree about Sola Fide & Zippy. I could actually have a discussion with them- especially Zippy, with no name-calling & insults.

I have never understood why he was hated so much while other obvious trolls are still here, praised, & allowed to continue the hate & division.

Members- if you don't like someone, put them on Ignore, then not only do you not have to read their stuff, but their POV, that you are hatin' on, isn't constantly bumped.

Rocket Science.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Prediction: When the Democrats end up taking more Senate seats in the midterms, they will push impeachment once again and successfully convict Trump.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I don't think you understand how Rand works. To him, the Constitution doesn't change its meaning depending on whether the person in question is a Republican or Democrat.

He's funny that way.

Winner!

 

[Invisible Man]

I don't think you understand how Rand works. To him, the Constitution doesn't change its meaning depending on whether the person in question is a Republican or Democrat.

He's funny that way.

I hope you're right. And in this case I wouldn't call it likely that a similar case will come up in the future. But it's a reason for him to be extra careful about declaring this to be unconstitutional. And it doesn't appear that he was here.

 

[TheTexan]

I hope you're right. And in this case I wouldn't call it likely that a similar case will come up in the future. But it's a reason for him to be extra careful about declaring this to be unconstitutional. And it doesn't appear that he was here.

Why would you say he wasn't careful

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't be an idiot. I know how it works. And I never said anything like what you're suggesting.

I said the "purpose" for impeaching someone...

And the judgment for impeachment can include removal from office and disqualification from future office. Not "or".

You are either being stupid or disingenuous. I suspect it's the TDS that's got you.

For those who missed the live Senate vote, "invisible" is restating the Chuck Schumer rebuttal to Rand Paul's call to dismiss the impeachment trial.

The Democrats are making their stand on separating that clause into two completely separate things. One is to remove from office, the other, newly separate power is to permanently ban a person from office.

AND =/= OR
...

Exactly. A conviction results in removal from office AND a permanent ban. It wasn't an "or".


Rand was right. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on this by not sending the Chief Justice to preside. This is not a constitutional impeachment trial, this is partisan Senate shenanigans.

But let's indulge this new Congressional power to disqualify people from office for a moment. What are the long term ramifications? How might it be used?


If the Democrats had a 2/3 majority in Congress, possibly including RINOs like Romney, they would surely impeach and convict ex-President Trump, the private citizen. Would they stop there? Why not impeach and convict Rand so that he can be removed and never run again? How about those pesky children of Trump? Perhaps some other promising GOP candidates that might strike the establishment or the Pelosi mob the wrong way? Too bad Tulsi, you will probably be a priority item.

Behind closes doors, Nancy Pelosi will probably shout, to the extreme amusement of her guests, that she can impeach a ham sandwich!


Or turn it around. A mythical Trump majority in the house, and a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The list of prospects would be truly long. Obama (Barry and Michelle), Romney, Pelosi, Schumer, they could be busy for a year doing one impeachment and trial a day.

What a wondrous new power for the Congress. Considering how they treat some candidates during primaries, it could make the process much easier. Instead of continually changing debate criteria and blacking out candidates, they could just impeach and convict the candidates they don't like.

Welcome to Soviet Amerika.

 

[Invisible Man]

Why would you say he wasn't careful

I could be wrong. There may be a point in favor of his view that hasn't come up in this thread. But it looks like he's defaulting to a position that isn't supported by a careful reading of what the Constitution does and does not say.

There's a popular tendency to think that impeachment is strictly for the purpose of removing someone from office, and would thus be only applicable to current office holders. This seems to be a misconception that's based on the fact that this is normally the case with impeachment, as opposed to having any basis in the text of the Constitution or the understanding of impeachment that prevailed when it was ratified. Some posters in this thread have even expressed that view. Unless there's more to Rand's position than has been brought out so far, it looks like that's what he's basing it on.

 

[Invisible Man]

Exactly. A conviction results in removal from office AND a permanent ban. It wasn't an "or".

A conviction can result in a punishment up to both of those. But it doesn't have to, as you imply. The Constitution merely stipulates that it cannot be anything more than those. If the Senate issues a punishment that is less than that maximum (e.g. one of those things and not the other), then it would be within the requirement of its judgement not extending beyond the two of them.

But let's indulge this new Congressional power to disqualify people from office for a moment. What are the long term ramifications? How might it be used?

It isn't a new Congressional power. It's a power that Congress has used before, not for any former presidents, but for others who had formerly held lower offices.

Why not impeach and convict Rand so that he can be removed and never run again? How about those pesky children of Trump?

The power to do that is a power Congress has, and has always had. What stops them from doing it? Nothing but politics. Impeachment is first and foremost a political process and not a juridical one.

 

[TheTexan]

I could be wrong. There may be a point in favor of his view that hasn't come up in this thread. But it looks like he's defaulting to a position that isn't supported by a careful reading of what the Constitution does and does not say.

You're entitled to your opinion in what you think the Constitution says, but that in no way means that Rand wasn't careful when he came to his own opinion.

 

[Invisible Man]

At this point my previous post of this article is buried back in an earlier page of this thread, so people currently catching up on the discussion may have missed it. But I encourage anyone who's interested in a thorough overview of the issues involved, from an the historical context of how impeachment was understood at the time the Constitution was ratified, to an analysis of the relevant text of the Constitution, to the historical precedent of impeachments and impeachment trials of ex-federal office holders, to check this out. The pdf download is available for free.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286277

 

[Brian4Liberty]

A conviction can result in a punishment up to both of those. But it doesn't have to, as you imply. The Constitution merely stipulates that it cannot be anything more than those. If the Senate issues a punishment that is less than that maximum (e.g. one of those things and not the other), then it would be within the requirement of its judgement not extending beyond the two of them.



It isn't a new Congressional power. It's a power that Congress has used before, not for any former presidents, but for others who had formerly held lower offices.



The power to do that is a power Congress has, and has always had. What stops them from doing it? Nothing but politics. Impeachment is first and foremost a political process and not a juridical one.

You say that like it's settled science. Can you quote where this power to ban a civilian from any public office is granted to Congress in the Constitution?

 

[Invisible Man]

You're entitled to your opinion in what you think the Constitution says, but that in no way means that Rand wasn't careful when he came to his own opinion.

I agree. It's possible that he was and that there's some point in favor of his view that hasn't come out. If there is one, it's unfortunate that he didn't seem to make that point, so that we'd know for sure.

 

[Invisible Man]

You say that like it's settled science. Can you quote where this power to ban a civilian from any public office is granted to Congress in the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments....
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Of course not just any civilian can be banned from public office by this process, it has to be someone who first can be impeached. And impeachment, by definition, is limited to offenses that involve the abuse of public trust (see, e.g., Federalist 65), such that people who have never held an office of public trust logically cannot be guilty of such offenses. But a civilian who is a former office holder, who committed offenses of that nature while in office, can be.

And my claim that this has been done before is settled science. It has been done before. One may argue that it was unconstitutional in those instances. But it is certainly not a "new congressional power."

 

[TheTexan]

I agree. It's possible that he was and that there's some point in favor of his view that hasn't come out. If there is one, it's unfortunate that he didn't seem to make that point, so that we'd know for sure.

I would presume his rationale for why he thinks the Constitution says what it does, is 2nd grade English reading ability, and shouldn't require a graduate level thesis on why "and" =/= "or".

Your understanding of the various nuances of the English language as used in the Constitution may be quite complicated, but for many people especially here, we believe the Constitution means what it says it means.

(As an unrelated example, "shall not be infringed" does not leave a lot of room for exceptions. Unless you're a clown in a gown with graduate degrees and have clearly a more thorough understanding of the English language than we do)