President Joe Biden

Grace T. said:
I really don’t recall at this time. I read a paper on it Thursday but don’t remember the specifics and don’t have time to look at it (playing board game with the kids)
Click to expand...

I can wait until tomorrow for your answer.
 
espola said:
I can wait until tomorrow for your answer.
Click to expand...
Ok couldn’t find the paper but found the info. There’s a senator a judge and a cabinet member. All pre 1900 (so the first issue is the precedent is old). The second issue is that none of it deals with a president whose term has expired (all 3 were resignations in an attempt to avoid removal. None of them were president and then there's the intervening case of Nixon's resignation also). The case of the Senator isn't helpful because the case seems to stand for the proposition that the Senate cannot impeach members of Congress but must instead expel them. The case of the federal judge also not controlling because he left without resigning to join the confederacy so technically was still in office. The case of the Sec State is probably most persuasive, but can be distinguished in that he resigned racing to the House to turn in the resignation, just as the House started to vote.

I'm not expressing any opinion on the Constitutionality of removing a former President here. I actually think it's a pretty close case. I think the fact Roberts refused to sit is a pretty big deal too. But I hardly describe this as "settled precedent". Certainly its precedent but there's also nothing on point here.
 
Happy President's Day President Biden. I hope you enjoy the special day. Let's all celebrate all that the Presidents have done for our Great America, that we all can Make to be Great. No one person is perfect and neither were all of our past Presidents. Thank you to all who served and made $400,000 a year for life. A special thanks to the one who never took a salary or never put us in a war. Also took all troops home or at least tried. No war President should be honored. Talk about saving lives. I know 100% who has his back. Good Monday to all!!

1613406416133.png
 
espola said:
Other federal officers have been impeached after leaving office in order to disqualify them from future federal positions.
Click to expand...
Others?

No not others.

There has been precisely 1 person. William Belknap

He was acquitted because a large percentage of senators believed they could not impeach (because he no longer held office) him even though they (all the senators) believed he was guilty.
 
Desert Hound said:
Others?

No not others.

There has been precisely 1 person. William Belknap

He was acquitted because a large percentage of senators believed they could not impeach (because he no longer held office) him even though they (all the senators) believed he was guilty.
Click to expand...
Hey bro, all this fools just opened up everyone for their own Impeachment. Remember, be careful what you ask for.....lol!!! BahhhhhhhaahhhhhhabbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBahhhhhhhhhhh. We have some dumb goats on here, that's for sure.
 
I have a prediction to make. Dum dum will be here soon to set us all straight. Mr Magoo will go away for a few days and his other evil side will go full hate and attack with mean words. Long Game will be here soon as well to add fake support. One dude playing with us, all by himself.
 
Desert Hound said:
Others?

No not others.

There has been precisely 1 person. William Belknap

He was acquitted because a large percentage of senators believed they could not impeach (because he no longer held office) him even though they (all the senators) believed he was guilty.
Click to expand...

Senator William Blount was impeached by the House after he had been expelled by the Senate. The Senate started the trial and then voted that his expulsion served the same purpose, and so ended the trial. That precedent holds to this day. A test case of that separation would be one brought against a sitting Senator.

Federal Judge West Humphreys was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate in 1861, all after he had resigned his post to serve in the Confederate States government.

In the Belknap case, he was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House despite his resignation after the committee holding hearings on his corruption unanimously recommended an impeachment. A majority of the Senate agreed that he was subject to impeachment despite having resigned his office, but he survived the trial because the final vote against him was only 56% (37-29).
 
espola said:
Senator William Blount was impeached by the House after he had been expelled by the Senate. The Senate started the trial and then voted that his expulsion served the same purpose, and so ended the trial. That precedent holds to this day. A test case of that separation would be one brought against a sitting Senator.

Federal Judge West Humphreys was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate in 1861, all after he had resigned his post to serve in the Confederate States government.

In the Belknap case, he was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House despite his resignation after the committee holding hearings on his corruption unanimously recommended an impeachment. A majority of the Senate agreed that he was subject to impeachment despite having resigned his office, but he survived the trial because the final vote against him was only 56% (37-29).
Click to expand...
You need to learn history.

Impeachment charges were brought up while he still held office. Later the same day the Senate expelled him.

And when the House charges went to the Senate?

"Charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Blount had been expelled from the U.S. Senate before his trial."

In other words, the Senate refused to even start the impeachment trial.

Humphreys never resigned. He lost his office after the impeachment proceedings. Now to further muddy things up. His jurisdiction was in and around Tennessee. A state the left the union.
 
Grace T. said:
Ok couldn’t find the paper but found the info. There’s a senator a judge and a cabinet member. All pre 1900 (so the first issue is the precedent is old). The second issue is that none of it deals with a president whose term has expired (all 3 were resignations in an attempt to avoid removal. None of them were president and then there's the intervening case of Nixon's resignation also). The case of the Senator isn't helpful because the case seems to stand for the proposition that the Senate cannot impeach members of Congress but must instead expel them. The case of the federal judge also not controlling because he left without resigning to join the confederacy so technically was still in office. The case of the Sec State is probably most persuasive, but can be distinguished in that he resigned racing to the House to turn in the resignation, just as the House started to vote.

I'm not expressing any opinion on the Constitutionality of removing a former President here. I actually think it's a pretty close case. I think the fact Roberts refused to sit is a pretty big deal too. But I hardly describe this as "settled precedent". Certainly its precedent but there's also nothing on point here.
Click to expand...

I could nitpick (it was Grant's Secretary of War, for instance), but it all comes down to your opinion.
 
espola said:
I could nitpick (it was Grant's Secretary of War, for instance), but it all comes down to your opinion.
Click to expand...

That part's not really an opinion. It borders somewhere between professional opinion and fact. I agree there's precedent (which is fact). One could even arguably describe it as good precedent (which would be an opinion). That precedent cannot be described by any stretch though "as settled precedent" due to the issues I pointed out. You overspoke, but after this trial I think now there is "settled precedent" on the point.
 
Grace T. said:
That part's not really an opinion. It borders somewhere between professional opinion and fact. I agree there's precedent (which is fact). One could even arguably describe it as good precedent (which would be an opinion). That precedent cannot be described by any stretch though "as settled precedent" due to the issues I pointed out. You overspoke, but after this trial I think now there is "settled precedent" on the point.
Click to expand...

The Senate agreed that the impeachment after leaving office was constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top