Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 11 Next >>
Topic: Trump Humiliated? Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 13420
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 9:54am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

John, there is precedent for disqualification being treated as a separate vote  that requires only a simple majority. The constitution is ambiguous on the matter. 

LINK to the case (impeachment of Judge Humphreys)

"The presiding officer held that the question on removal and 
disqualification was divisible."
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brad Wilders
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 15 December 2008
Posts: 158
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 9:56am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

John,

Your Obama example is inapt.  Trump was impeached while in office.  His term ended before the trial could commence, which makes it unnecessary to remove him, but not to prevent him from holding another office or position of trust in the government--one of the two remedies the constitution authorizes the Senate to levy if it convicts an impeached officer.

Limited government has nothing to do with this.  We are not talking about restricting anyone's individual rights or liberty. This is a structural constraint on who is eligible to serve in a government office, and whether someone who is convicted of an impeachable offense can do so.

As the High Crimes provision, it is not debatable among serious constitutional scholars that it requires commission of a criminal offense, and nothing you cite from Clinton's defense team contradicts that.  Inciting insurrection against our government is a subversion of our government, right?  You are not seriously arguing that a President who incites an insurrection cannot be impeached?


Back to Top profile | search
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 184
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 10:19am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

"You are not seriously arguing that a President who incites an insurrection cannot be impeached?"

Nope.  In a previous post I conceded the point that it may be possible to have malfeasance that is gross enough to warrant impeachment. 

As to your other points, I have to go to work, so I'll get back to you this evening.  Peter Martin, thanks for the link to the Judge Humphreys case.  I will read it and respond as soon as I get free.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11249
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 10:36am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Once more... conviction/removal is automatic and requires a super-majority; disqualification is a later punishment and requires only a simple majority.

If an officer is convicted by two-thirds of Senators present, "such a vote operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from office." See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Amending the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., August 13, 1986, S.Rept. 99-401 (Washington: GPO, 1986), pp. 9-10.

The Senate may then choose to take the additional action to move to disqualify a convicted officer from holding further office, although this step is not required. The Senate has established that a vote to disqualify requires a simple majority voting affirmatively, and not two-thirds as with conviction. See Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials, pp. 81-82. 

The Senate has convicted 8 impeached officers, all federal judges, and disqualified three from holding future office: Judge West H. Humphreys, 1862; Judge Robert W. Archbald, 1913; and Judge G. Thomas Porteous, 2010. See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 200), p. 78; and Congressional Record, vol. 156 (December 8, 2010), p. 19136.


In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 HINDS’ PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 CANNON’S PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 CONG. REC. 5607 (1936).
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 28198
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 11:04am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Why do the pundits keep saying that 17 Republicans need to vote with
the Democrats to get the 2/3 majority if they only need a simple
majority?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11249
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 11:12am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Super-majority for conviction/removal. 50 Dem Senators plus 17 Rep Senators.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 28198
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 11:29am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Ah, right. They have to convict first before they can vote on the other.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2632
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 12:37pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

What 'strikes me as wrong' always leads directly to Trump. Has always lead to Trump, and his 'base' and anyone who would knowingly support such an individual misrepresenting themself in so many ways for the past number of years in any position of power. Nobody else is what is most wrong right now; not the Democrats or the few Republicans just doing their job..

Wrong is fishing out some conjunction in a constitutional sentence to focus on and interpret in a way to protect Trump yet again from consequence any individual doing what he has done would face. It's just more of let's not look at the 'well regulated militia' bit but the commas! >:^(
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 13420
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 1:39pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Super-majority for conviction/removal. 50 Dem Senators plus 17 Rep Senators.
---------------------------
Presuming all 100 senators are present...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11249
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 2:15pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

That's right. If the correct number of Republican Senators who would presumably vote not to convict instead sat out the vote, then the super-majority required to convict would correspondingly decrease. It's a tantalizing possibility, but nothing being reported suggests it could happen.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 2632
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 4:04pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

I'm living next door to a country that keeps giving 'Toonces the Driving Cat' the wheel! :^(

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 184
Posted: 12 February 2021 at 6:51pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

"Guys, you’ll never convince him Trump isn’t humanity’s savior and is
wrongfully accused yet again. Just ignore him and you won’t have to
read his blatant disregard for truth any more."

"Wrong is fishing out some conjunction in a constitutional sentence to focus on and interpret in a way to protect Trump yet again from consequence any individual doing what he has done would face."

I usually don't respond to these types of personal comments, but it seems that almost any political discussion eventually devolves into this, so in the interests of preventing that I want to point a few things out:
  • No one in this conversation has defended the actions of President Trump.  In fact, we haven't even discussed the subject of whether his conduct was worthy of impeachment.  In any proceeding like this (or in a court case) jurisdiction should be the first question addressed, and that is what we were talking about.  Taking the time do discuss jurisdiction is not just about protecting an individual defendant; its also about protecting the institutions of government.
  • I am a conservative Republican, but I am not now, nor have I ever been a loyal devotee of Donald Trump.
  • I am ALWAYS open to having my mind changed (and HAVE had my mind changed a few times by posters on this message board)  Otherwise, why have these conversations to begin with?  There are many places I could go on the internet to find people who share my political views, and we could spend hours passing the same talking points back and forth but that would be pointless and boring.  I find it much more interesting to talk to intelligent people who have different, and sometimes opposing points of view; especially if they are better informed than I am, and there is an opportunity for me to learn something from the interaction.  If you look at my posts, you will see there have been several times (even one or two on this thread) where I have candidly admitted I was wrong about something based on better information that was presented by another poster.  
So before making these blanket statements and assumptions about who people are or what they think, I would respectfully suggest that you take the time to listen.  You might be surprised.

Brad, Peter & Michael- I'm not ignoring your points.  I just haven't had a chance to read the Judge Humphreys case yet.

  
  
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 11 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE