They have the power to fire a President if he commits a crime. They don't have the power to try and convict an actual criminal case which is why he wouldn't have been jailed if found guilty by the Senate.
Yes, and the only punishment. But someone who does things like kill or steal military secrets should be punished by more than just being fired. They ought be criminally prosecuted and jailed if found guilty.
From being fired, yes. That doesn't preclude subsequent criminal prosecution.
The Senate tries, the Chief Justice presides. If convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law". — NOS4A2
It doesn't include it either. What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th. — NOS4A2
This is the position of Trump's attorney, but I'm pretty confident it will fail, but more importantly- I feel strongly that we should all hope it does fail.They should be criminally prosecuted, and probably would if they were convicted of those crimes in the Senate. They should not be criminally prosecuted if they were acquitted. — NOS4A2
What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th. — NOS4A2
This is the position of Trump's attorney, but I'm pretty confident it will fail, but more importantly- I feel strongly that we should all hope it does fail.
We should hope it fails, because it would permit a President to commit any crime that a small number of Senators are willing to countenance.
But it's in the hands of a jury to convict. Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts. Senators can be expected to be biased, and as I said - their biases could permit crimes to be committed by the President that would never be judged by a jury.I hope it passes because a salty prosecutor could indict the presidents he doesn’t like, — NOS4A2
It does no such thing. The potential to hold a President criminally liable for his crimes has no effect on the power of impeachment....and it would render useless a check on the executive and judicial branch.
Being a representative of the people means there's an incentive to base one's impeachment (or removal) vote on the wishes of constituents, rather than on the facts of the case. That's not even consistent with the 6th Amendment.Impeachment is far better measure because it leaves the power to convict and acquit their leaders in the hands of the representatives of the people, such as it is.
Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts — Relativist
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.
Unless that person was black, that would probably win him votes. :vomit:
I think that will be my new favourite emoticon. — Benkei
It's such a shame this thread still exists, I honestly thought after the jan 6th atrocity and his election wipeouts it would be all consigned to the past. — Wayfarer
You mean M. Scott Peck? I did read Road Less Travelled in the 90's, one of my favourites. — Wayfarer
I could get someone saying it's not always sucessful, but there's no question that the effort is made and the result is better than seating a jury that is knowingly biased. — Relativist
These attempts consist of strikes, so they aren't selecting favorable jurors, they are only eliminating unfavorable ones. This process of competing interests leads to a set of jurors less likely to favor either side.In a criminal case, both sides will actively attempt to choose jurors they deem favourable, or exclude jurors the deem unfavourable during voir dire. — AmadeusD
This process of competing interests leads to a set of jurors less likely to favor either side. — Relativist
My main point is that it's more impartial that a bunch of Senators — Relativist
But they hold differing opinions about what that phrase means, and two-thirds of U.S. adults say churches should keep out of politics
The rising influence of Christian nationalism in some segments of American politics poses a major threat to the health of our democracy. Increasingly, the major battle lines of the culture war are being drawn between a right animated by a Christian nationalist worldview and Americans who embrace the country’s growing racial and religious diversity.
Like many, we were deeply affected by the sharp divisions, fueled by conspiracy theories, that arose around COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election.
We noted that conspiracy theories related to both COVID-19 and the Big Lie gained traction in religious communities that tended towards biblical literalism and Christian nationalism, leading us to wonder if either of these two aspects of American religion (biblical literalism and Christian nationalism) were related to a broader tendency for Americans to think in conspiratorial ways.
Christian nationalism links being Christian to being American. In the view of many Christian nationalists, this linkage is threatened by secularization and other social changes. Biblical literalism is the belief that each word in the Bible should be accepted as God’s word spoken directly to readers, not to be filtered through religious elites.
Using survey data, we find that the sense of a threatened nation inherent in Christian nationalism and the anti-elite tendencies in biblical literalism amplify conspiracy thinking, and that the two have especially strong effects when they occur together. We conclude that Christian nationalist and biblical literalist support of COVID-19 and the 2020 election conspiracy theories are not a one-off; Christian nationalists and biblical literalists are likely to buy into future conspiracy theories, too.
We were surprised at the effect sizes we observed. When occurring together, biblical literalism and Christian nationalism had a much stronger effect than well-established predictors of conspiracy thinking, like education. It’s also important not to lump all religious activity together — religious service attendance was consistently associated with less conspiracy thinking.
We measured conspiracy thinking by respondents’ agreement with eight different conspiracy theories. Social scientists have developed other measures of conspiracy thinking that don’t rely on respondents’ knowledge of specific conspiracy theories. Replicating our models with one of these more general measures would certainly strengthen the findings.
Also, we can’t stop with diagnosing the problem — we need to think deeply about how Christian nationalists and biblical literalists might become less susceptible to conspiracy thinking. — Brooklyn Walker · Jun 11, 2023
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said shooting people who cross the border is the only tool the state is not using to deter migrants because the Biden administration would sue the state for “murder.”
“We are using every tool that can be used from building a border wall, to building these border barriers, to passing this law that I signed that led to another lawsuit by the Biden administration where I signed a law making it illegal for somebody to enter Texas from another country,” Abbott said on “The Dana Loesch Show” last week.
“The only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border, because of course the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” Abbott later added.
more than an insignificant fringe — jorndoe
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.