The official Impeachment Trial thread.

Jul 2015
5,897
2,430
chicago
Your impeached president is impeached. He just hasn't been removed. But he is going down in history as the third US president to be impeached. Not as good as getting rid of the ass, but still, he is impeached
Not so sure about that. Scholars and constitutional lawyers are debating whether the President is actually impeached if the articles are not turned over to the senate for trial.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,050
29,205
La La Land North
Not so sure about that. Scholars and constitutional lawyers are debating whether the President is actually impeached if the articles are not turned over to the senate for trial.
They will be. I hope your impeached president is enjoying the wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Feb 2007
6,181
3,854
USA
Not so sure about that. Scholars and constitutional lawyers are debating whether the President is actually impeached if the articles are not turned over to the senate for trial.
Hmmmm....And those alleged "scholars and constitutional lawyers" names happen to be...?

Particularly being that, as per the US Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment," with the last five words of this clause seemingly being rather important words regarding that supposed debate.

:rolleyes:
 
Jul 2015
5,897
2,430
chicago
Hmmmm....And those alleged "scholars and constitutional lawyers" names happen to be...?

Particularly being that, as per the US Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment," with the last five words of this clause seemingly being rather important words regarding that supposed debate.

:rolleyes:
Yes and the point of the impeachment is to go to a trial in the Senate. The impeachment is like an indictment. If an indictment does not get adjudicated then what is it? Its nothing.
 
Feb 2007
6,181
3,854
USA
Yes and the point of the impeachment is to go to a trial in the Senate. The impeachment is like an indictment. If an indictment does not get adjudicated then what is it? Its nothing.
It is still an impeachment nonetheless, within the sole power of the House. And the Constitution is seemingly entirely silent regarding the notion that a trial must occur in the Senate as a result of an impeachment in the House. And certainly, if that supposed requirement is what the Founding Fathers wanted, then I would think that they would have added text to that effect, particularly since the ability to remove the president from office was the first topic that was debated by them when they developed Article 2 of the Constitution, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Jul 2015
5,897
2,430
chicago
It is still an impeachment nonetheless, within the sole power of the House. And the Constitution is entirely silent regarding the notion that a trial must occur in the Senate as a result of an impeachment in the House. And certainly, if that supposed requirement is what the Founding Fathers wanted, then I would think that they would have added text to that effect, particularly since the ability to remove the president from office was the first topic that was debated by them when they developed Article 2 of the Constitution, if I'm not mistaken.
The founding fathers knew that the point of impeachment was to send the President to trial. They were silent on it because to not sent the articles to the senate makes zero sense if the premise is to find guilt or innocence.


As Ted Cruz has said:
“Her threat to the Senate is: Do exactly what I want or I’m not going to impeach the president, I’m not going to send over the impeachment articles,” the Texas Republican said to Fox News. “My attitude is, OK, throw us in that brier patch. Don’t send them. That’s all right. We actually have work to do.”
 
Jul 2015
5,897
2,430
chicago
McConnell needs to announce that he is totally fine with the House deciding not to follow through with the impeachment proceedings. No problem....
 
Feb 2007
6,181
3,854
USA
The founding fathers knew that the point of impeachment was to send the President to trial. They were silent on it because to not sent the articles to the senate makes zero sense if the premise is to find guilt or innocence.

...
Well, then you should have no problem pointing to any transcript of the Constitution-writing debates that supports the claim that, in effect, the Senate "must" try all impeachments.

But, even if that is the case, which I admit it could be, it wouldn't change the fact that only the House has the power to impeach, regardless of whatever happens afterwards. And the existence of that fact about a President, Vice President or any civil Officers getting impeached wouldn't somehow stop being a fact, pending the outcome of a Senate trial, including if that person resigns before the Senate votes on the matter, let alone just receives notice that person had been impeached in the House.

(Heck, it doesn't even appear that Cruz is making the same claim that you are.)