Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

Bugenhagen said:
chief justice Roberts should not allow them on it knowing they spurn their duties.
More...

This is an interesting supposition. While I don’t think a ruling would be made to uphold this idea I actually think there is a sound constitutional test here and that is always worth a review.

While the constitution does not have any reviewable clauses concerning impeachment, itself, there is certainly a reviewable clause concerning the trial. Namely that there shall be an oath or affirmation. If the senate failed to take an oath before an impeachment trial that trial would not be constitutional. No doubt it’s a constitutional obligation.

The reason for the oath is because impeachment is a very serious responsibility of senators - alone - as it is an important check on unfaithful public servants. Senators shirking this responsibility is theoretically unconstitutional.

Now, Chief justices have pressed their will on senate procedures before and they have been overturned by the senate and it was ruled that the senate should govern themselves in impeachment trials but technically is an oath part part of trial procedure or is the oath required before trial is really the question.

Constitutional law and statutory law are two different things and I don’t like to compare the two but a good analogy would be does a trial begin at the jury selection?

It should also be noted some senatoyon the past have argued they are not qualified to be jurors in such matters but that was dismissed (I forget how, whether internally or at SCOTUS) but the end result of that was all senators must fully participate in trials.

Still, it’s an interesting test.
 
DTB2 said:
That's the transparency the Dems are famous for.
More...

@Tony Stark , you are not wrong, they don't like that idea.

Again because of their duty, there should be no question of a party whip from either side. Sounds fair as it has the possibility of benefiting Trump also (kidding, only a corrupt packed jury saves him ;) )
 
What a bunch of happy horseshit all these "we have to see a fair trial and mitch is too prejudiced to vote" bullshit statements by the dems are.

Half the fucking dems in the Senate said Trump should be impeached for some or many reasons before he even had the Ukraine call. You think they are coming in with untainted minds/unbiased minds and are not rooting for their team.

How bout the large number of dem senators running for president (some have dropped out but there are still plenty) who would be serving as a juror on a case involving their biggest obstacle to becoming President, ie Donald J. Trump -and how sweet it would be to get him out of the way. You think they are coming into the process unbiased?

I can tell you with 100% certainty how Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, and Mazy Hirono are going to vote before the trial even begins. Oh but there is no talk of disqualifying them is there?

Dem clowns ran a kangaroo star court in the house and now have a rabid love for fairness and the Founding Fathers. The same people that they refer to as old, white slaveholders, who formed the worst country on earth most other times.

The dumb-arse tards and Nancy Pelosi are working overtime for the re-election of Trump. Stupid shit impeachment moves and even though their only salvation would be to replace Trump at the polls they have put up a bunch of lefty trash candidates who are dumber than dogshit. Gonna be some whining and butthurt next november for sure. The democrats owe this country an apology for trying to overthrow the government and put their trash in office, even though they are still at it. Barr and Durham gonna say more on that. The dems are a far more serious threat to the republic than the Russians have been, by far.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top