The oath to take the public office they preside over includes upholding the Constitution... which most certainly includes performing their role as judge regarding the guilt/innocence of the accused based upon the facts and testimony brought into evidence... — creativesoul
The oath to take the public office they preside over includes upholding the Constitution... which most certainly includes performing their role as judge regarding the guilt/innocence of the accused based upon the facts and testimony brought into evidence...
— creativesoul
But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. — VagabondSpectre
But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. If what Hanover suggests is true, then the Senate essentially has the authority to do whatever they want, where the only recourse is voting them out (even if they gerrymander or seek to rig elections in their favor apparently). If the senate gets to decide to any degree what the constitution means or when it should be ignored, then yes, that's fucked. Another level of irony given it's the republicans who are obsessed with appealing to founder's intentions in constitutional interpretation... — VagabondSpectre
His actions during the trial, and what can be proven during the trial, and what the consequences could theoretically be for such behavior in an impeachment trial, are matters yet to unfold and to be decided by a Supreme Court review (likely). — VagabondSpectre
Don't mind Hanover, he's just lawyering from a shit-igloo. — Baden
This is, by its nature, a free for all dependent upon the subjective whims of the Senate, very doubtfully reviewable by the courts. — Hanover
You just really don't fully understand the judicial process. How does this case get to the Court? Who has standing to bring it? Someone is going to sue a Senator for failing to exercise his discretion in what they believe required (under what law?) and they're going to do what? File for equitable relief (a writ of mandamus) or they're going to ask for money damages? Are you moving for contempt? You think a judge can disqualify a Senator? You just don't realize how little sense you're making. — Hanover
Your attempt to directly analogize a judicial proceeding with an impeachment fails on many levels. The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." There are no specific elements that must be proved for those crimes and they were created by the House ex post facto. That is the way impeachment is done, legally and constitutionally, but in a real judicial hearing it would be fundamentally unfair. There would also be a clear burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), but here none is specified, a serious problem for an accused. There are also no rules of evidence, meaning hearsay, character attacks and the like might be admissible, as might be consideration of evidence outside the proceeding. — Hanover
The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." — Hanover
t was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are. — NOS4A2
Apparently the House, having no respect for the most fundamental of Constitutional principles, namely the separation if powers, refuses to cede the power to the Senate to hold its trial as it sees fit. — Hanover
Republicans do know where they have to stand. During Nixon's time, they were far more confident where they stood. They could throw away Nixon and be confident that they would have enough popular support in election (even if the Dems got Carter later). Now they aren't so confident about themselves anymore, hence they will defend to the last man Trump, even if they hate the guy privately. — ssu
The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" — Hanover
Impeachment is democracy turning in on itself, where our representatives vote out our representatives. — Hanover
There are thousands of pages, and many hours, of witness testimony, which attest in enormous detail to Trump’s attempt to extort a foreign power by withholding aid to elicit help for political gain. Many of those witnesses were appointed by Trump and are generally witnesses of repute and professional standing. Really, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, which is why the Republicans can’t defend him. All they can do is attack the process and obfuscate. Like you are doing. — Wayfarer
For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. The jury willl then determine if the facts establish a theft.
In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer. — Hanover
My comment relates to the vague Constitutional standard and the legal description of the allegations contained in the articles, not the factual basis of the allegations.
For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. — Hanover
In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer.
Why is it not the discretion of the House, to deliver the papers when they see fit? It does not make sense that the Senate can force the House to deliver the papers at any particular time. — Metaphysician Undercover
You're just making stuff up. There is no "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft, or any such crime, just like there is no clear criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors of a president. If there was such clarity the lawyers would be without a job. And it's very clear that there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in this world. — Metaphysician Undercover
As you guys have gone on and on describing the great need for this impeachment and congratulated one another on each other's rhetoric, you'd think the House would actually impeach this President instead of playing politics. — Hanover
...when he unlawfully takes.. — Hanover
Although that's true, they can refer to actual laws being broken which does make it much less of an open question. For example refusing to comply with subpoenas which is an offense against 18 U.S. Code § 1505. So although the first article of impeachment is somewhat vague, the second is pretty clearly defined. — Michael
That looks circular to me. Where's the "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft? To say that theft occurs when someone unlawfully takes something does not provide a clear law of when theft occurs. your "law" is self referential. The law is broken when someone acts unlawfully. What determines "unlawfulness" in this instance? That is what is required here. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is a legal means to enforce a Congressionally issued subpoena. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8 — Hanover
The remedy against someone who disputes the legitimacy of a subpoena is enforcement, not the overturning of an election. — Hanover
Sorry, but word crimes are actual crimes, especially when you're the president of the United States of America, because your words actually have power.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.