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.
1. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to con- duct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.
VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise.specially provided for. And the Presid- ing Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence includ- ing, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redun- dancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules ofthe Senate.
A concurring opinion is one which agrees with the court's decision, but offers further commentary. It is used to explain the reasoning of a particular judge. A concurring opinion may agree with the outcome decided by the courts majority. But would have reached the same result for a different reason.
But we conclude, after exercising that delicate responsibility, that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority
Only one claim remains, however, it is the one with merit. Did the use of an impeachment trial committee pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of Procedure and Practice when Sitting in Cases of Impeachment violate the Constitution? This Court believes it did. The Constitution says "The House of Representatives shall chuse (sic) their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5.
This language gives the House of Representatives exclusive power to issue articles of impeachment and the Senate sole power to "try" impeachments. While the Senate does have considerable discretion to decide what procedures it will use when it conducts an impeachment trial, it cannot ignore the mandate of the Constitution which requires that the procedure merit the name "trial." As Judge Edwards stated in his dissent in the Nixon case
This is so because the Senate has very wide discretion in specifying impeachment trial procedures and because it is extremely unlikely that the Senate would abuse its discretion and insist on a procedure that could not be deemed a trial by reasonable judges.
The Court is of the view that the Constitution forbids us even to consider his contention. I find no such prohibition and would therefore reach the merits of the claim. I concur in the judgment because the Senate fulfilled its constitutional obligation to "try" petitioner.
They also gave a hypothetical situation that would never happen. Which is technically occurring as we speak.....
One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin-toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " 'a bad guy,' " ante, at ____ (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence. "The political question doctrine, a tool for maintenance of governmental order, will not be so applied as to promote only disorder.
Government forecloses any assumption that improbable hypotheticals like those mentioned by Justice WHITE and Justice SOUTER will ever occur.
He agreed that the judicial system. should not get involved in the impeachment process in part. But he based his decision on improbable hypotheticals would never happen. Yet here we are.
The Democrats could claim that without a trial at the same instances are occurring today.
So we have three justices and a appellate court judge. That disagreed with the majority that the word “try” didn’t have Identifiable textual limits which would make it judicially reviewable.
If the conditions for a trial hadn’t been met. No probability Nixon versus the US would’ve been a 6-3 decision.
All four justices said the impeachment process could be reviewable if the Senate or House for that matter got out of line.
Who knows how that would be ruled on now?
That leaves the myth of no involvement in the impeachment process laid bare. There are conditions where the Supreme Court may get involved.
To get to the point I started on seven days ago. Lol
Why should we give the Democrats fuel for the fire? Be patient and wait for the proper moment to move for dismissal. Which is after the requirements for a trial are fulfilled .
I don’t think the Democrats would win. But they would have standing.
I don’t know if it would have to go directly to the Supreme Court or if they could milk it through the appeals system.
If they got in front of Liberal rubber stamp judges it could take a while.
My opinion is why take the chance?
Let the wicked witch of the west (Nancy) hold back her flying monkeys(the managers) as long as she wants. All it does is piss off the radical left and expose what the Democrats are doing to the independents we need in November.
It’s probably a moot point. I think Trump wants a trial. Put Schumer and the rest of them on the stand. My interpretation of the rules imply that all immunity is off.
I’m not a lawyer but I drove by a Holiday Inn express last night.
If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin-toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply " 'a bad guy,' " ante, at ____ (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.
The Supreme Court interpreted the language "in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace" to encompass all crimes. Williamson v. United States (1908). Tracing the origins of the clause to parliamentary privilege, the Court found this identical language was used to qualify Parliament's privilege from arrest so that the members of Parliament were not immune from criminal prosecution. The Court concluded that the Framers' use of the identical phrase, without any explanation, indicated that Congress's privilege was to have the same limitation regarding criminal actions as did the parliamentary privilege from which the language was borrowed. The clause, therefore, does not provide Congress with any immunity from criminal prosecution.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fallingdown
While I have grown tired of the Democrats white whale
You do remember the white whale got Ahab in the end dont you? Yeah the white whale is real.
originally posted by: jtma508
No person with even a shred of intellect would expect Pelosi to forward the Articles to the Senate when the Majority Leader and several other Republicans have openly and cavalierly stated that they plan to rubber-stamp-acquit Trump as soon as they receive them. I mean come on FFS. It is immaterial whether the pro-Trumpers THINK there is no merit to the Impeachment. The fact is, a majority of Congresspeople along with a significant body of outside legal experts have stated that there are sufficient facts to warrant the Impeachment. The impeachment is like an indictment. Trump has been indicted. The next step is supposed to be a trial. But McConnell & Co. don't want an actual trial --- no witnesses, no testimony, no evidence, just a speedy acquittal. Given that, why WOULD Pelosi --- why would ANYBODY --- forward the Articles?
....less we forget that transcript was the holy Grail of innocence on ATS after it was released