It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He wasn't an American from what I saw
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
originally posted by: Goedhardt
They will fabicate something new, just as they did with ‘Russia collusion’, ‘Obstruction of justice’, ‘hiding the crimes in the Mueller report via redactions’, ‘not releasing his taxes’, ‘Ukrainien phonecalls’, ‘obstruction of congress’, ‘being racist’, ‘abuse of power’, ‘being a big meanie’, ‘Orange man bad’ and so on...
They don’t need the double jeopardy... they WILL think of something new...
Man, think if Obama would have been suspect to even ONE of those... The right would have had an aneurysm by proxy.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: AaarghZombies
Has Trump murdered someone?
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
However, if the Republicans loose the Senate and the Democrats keep the house, and Trump wins again, they might try to impeach him again.
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Stupid question, but does double jeopardy apply in the case of an impeachment like it would in a regular civilian court?
If Trump comes through this and is vindicatednot removed from office, can the democrats come back later on and try again later on?
Bonus dumb question, if Trump loses the next election and becomes just a regular former president, could he be tried over the whole Ukraine thing in a regular civillegal court?
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the nonjusticiability doctrine.
Applying the Doctrine
In Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), which is one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying the political question doctrine, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. As such, the Court found that cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power present political questions. Thus, the Court held that it cannot preside over these issues.
The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch.
The Court in Nixon v. United States (1993) also extended this doctrine to which lawsuits which challenge the Legislative Branch's procedure for impeachment proceedings.
Further, the Supreme Court has chosen to apply the doctrine in more cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AaarghZombies
I asked this question the other day. Based on the research, technically speaking, there is no limit on the House’s impeachment powers.
As long as they have a 51% majority ...
The prohibition of double jeopardy is a right in judicial proceedings not legislative.