Impeachment and individual’s rights

The issue at the heart of the impeachment of Donald Trump is constitutional rights versus a constitutional process.

Most people look at impeachment as a political process. The sole power to impeach/try gives Congress the power to do as they may with immunity from the courts.

The framers of the constitution were painstakingly explicit laying out the rights we are entitled to.

To the point of amending the constitution. In order to clarify our protections.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

Bill of rights Institute

In the same document they were vague and questioning as to parameters of the impeachment process.

The words “ sole power” in the impeachment clause carry a lot of weight with many. They believe any person being impeached has no rights because it’s a “ political process” . So that person is at the mercy of Congress.

How?

Do they have a doorman at the White House or Congress?

“ Hi welcome to DC let me take your coat . The bathroom is on the left. Don’t forget to leave your constitutional rights at the door “.

Pfffft

Why do people think the framers would’ve allow that ?

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

5th & 14th No person shall...be deprived of life, *liberty, or property, without due process of law....

*Liberty is the right to exercise the rights enumerated by the constitution or available or under natural law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Link includes explanation of the word state


The Bill of Rights was added to clarify individuals rights in the text of the Constitution. Which to the laymen (me) would supersede the text in the original document. IE: Any interpretation of the impeachment clause.

Amendment......

Any writing made or proposed as an improvement of some principal writing. In legislation. A modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law; also such modification or change when made. Brake v. Callison (C. C.) 122 Fed. 722.

Blacks legal dictionary

Regardless of whether there is a textual identifiable limit on the word “sole” . (which I think there is) How can someone lose their rights without them being specifically denied in the constitution when their specific rights are?

There needs to be a supreme court ruling. Do people accused under the process lose all of their constitutional rights ?

Yes or no ?

I see no way possible the Supreme Court could say yes . That decision would be a affront to the constitution’s core promise of inalienable rights .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The issue at the heart of the impeachment of Donald Trump is constitutional rights versus a constitutional process.

Not to take away from your stellar post as it merits thought but the issue at the heart of the "impeachment" is the fact that democrats conducted secret (closed) meetings and discussed how to remove a duly elected and sitting POTUS.

This is the literal textbook definition of treason and yet....absolutely nothing is going to be done about this.

It truly illustrates how amazingly corrupt our "due process" is with regards to establishment politicians versus the rest of society.

This is the issue citizens from BOTH SIDES should be marching on Washington on.

Politicans in DC are criminals.

a reply to: 1point92AU

The question is completely on topic .

Because the reason nothing will happen falls under the house’s sole power over impeachment . They can conduct them anyway they choose under the current ruling . Which gives them immunity from prosecution .

They were basically a secret grand jury and you have no rights then

Republican representatives were present but Schiff classified discussions baring them from speaking about it.

It makes wonder that if Republicans retake the house can they declassify what happened.

Then we’ll find out went on.

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The issue at the heart of the impeachment of Donald Trump is constitutional rights versus a constitutional process.

Not to take away from your stellar post as it merits thought but the issue at the heart of the "impeachment" is the fact that democrats conducted secret (closed) meetings and discussed how to remove a duly elected and sitting POTUS.

This is the literal textbook definition of treason and yet....absolutely nothing is going to be done about this.

It truly illustrates how amazingly corrupt our "due process" is with regards to establishment politicians versus the rest of society.

This is the issue citizens from BOTH SIDES should be marching on Washington on.

Politicans in DC are criminals.

And the politicians at the local level are just as corrupt, that is why nothing ever has been done about politicians that play the game of "you scratch my back and I scratch your back". People that have businesses, we all come across this bs ALL the time.

The way I see it is the Democrats, being in control of the House, took the literal meaning of the word "sole" in the Constitution and ran with it. Meaning? They were the only ones allowed any say by their own rules. I watched Schiff flat-out stop Republicans from participating in most of the hearings. Schiff should be tried, convicted and hung for treason for the secret meetings where Republicans and more importantly, Trump's counsel, were denied access. Why? Because if they considered that a legal proceeding, they should have afforded Trump the same legal rights he would normally have had but they didn't. My memory is foggy on the Clinton impeachment, but I think they had the standard abilities for defense, questioning witnesses, etc., right?

I believe the Democrats, specifically Schiff and Nadler severely abused their power by their actions. On one hand claiming the impeachment process is a legal process when it benefited them, but that it was a political process when it didn't so they could deny the president his constitutional rights. Their hearings were a joke, and this whole business about not naming the whistleblower is unbelievable. It's not illegal but all of them including Roberts now are shielding this supposed person's name. I don't get it. It's not illegal to do so for anyone but the initial IG. When I read that Roberts denied Rand Paul's question I was stunned. Unless I'm missing something, Roberts doesn't have that authority under the law, yet here we are. I hope Rand pushes this like he said he might.

This whole fiasco really irritates me and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it. Nothing. Our own Representatives and Senators in some cases are completely ignoring the Constitution, precedent and laws and nobody is doing anything about it. It makes me so furious I have to get away from it at times. And despite what some aholes on the Left think about we conservatives, it's not about Trump, it's about right vs. wrong.

originally posted by: HalWesten
The way I see it is the Democrats, being in control of the House, took the literal meaning of the word "sole" in the Constitution and ran with it. Meaning? They were the only ones allowed any say by their own rules. I watched Schiff flat-out stop Republicans from participating in most of the hearings. Schiff should be tried, convicted and hung for treason for the secret meetings where Republicans and more importantly, Trump's counsel, were denied access. Why? Because if they considered that a legal proceeding, they should have afforded Trump the same legal rights he would normally have had but they didn't. My memory is foggy on the Clinton impeachment, but I think they had the standard abilities for defense, questioning witnesses, etc., right?

I believe the Democrats, specifically Schiff and Nadler severely abused their power by their actions. On one hand claiming the impeachment process is a legal process when it benefited them, but that it was a political process when it didn't so they could deny the president his constitutional rights. Their hearings were a joke, and this whole business about not naming the whistleblower is unbelievable. It's not illegal but all of them including Roberts now are shielding this supposed person's name. I don't get it. It's not illegal to do so for anyone but the initial IG. When I read that Roberts denied Rand Paul's question I was stunned. Unless I'm missing something, Roberts doesn't have that authority under the law, yet here we are. I hope Rand pushes this like he said he might.

This whole fiasco really irritates me and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it. Nothing. Our own Representatives and Senators in some cases are completely ignoring the Constitution, precedent and laws and nobody is doing anything about it. It makes me so furious I have to get away from it at times. And despite what some aholes on the Left think about we conservatives, it's not about Trump, it's about right vs. wrong.

If the Constitution says that Congress has the sole power of impeachment, and the White House are listing out all sorts of things that they say that Congress has to do (and which, for the most part, Congress has acceded to), don't you see the White House was contradicting the Constitution in that regard?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
The issue at the heart of the impeachment of Donald Trump is constitutional rights versus a constitutional process.

Most people look at impeachment as a political process. The sole power to impeach/try gives Congress the power to do as they may with immunity from the courts.

The framers of the constitution were painstakingly explicit laying out the rights we are entitled to.

To the point of amending the constitution. In order to clarify our protections.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

Bill of rights Institute

In the same document they were vague and questioning as to parameters of the impeachment process.

The words “ sole power” in the impeachment clause carry a lot of weight with many. They believe any person being impeached has no rights because it’s a “ political process” . So that person is at the mercy of Congress.

How?

Do they have a doorman at the White House or Congress?

“ Hi welcome to DC let me take your coat . The bathroom is on the left. Don’t forget to leave your constitutional rights at the door “.

Pfffft

Why do people think the framers would’ve allow that ?

Is there a doorman that says that? No?

Then it is clear that the framers of the Constitution would never have included caveats that dealt with every nonsense scenario.

Do you think that using absurdist and hyperbole makes some sort of rational case?

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

5th & 14th No person shall...be deprived of life, *liberty, or property, without due process of law....

*Liberty is the right to exercise the rights enumerated by the constitution or available or under natural law. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Link includes explanation of the word state

Is a 'trial' that excludes relevant witness testimonies and evidence actually the "due process of law"?

The Bill of Rights was added to clarify individuals rights in the text of the Constitution. Which to the laymen (me) would supersede the text in the original document. IE: Any interpretation of the impeachment clause.

Amendment......

Any writing made or proposed as an improvement of some principal writing. In legislation. A modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law; also such modification or change when made. Brake v. Callison (C. C.) 122 Fed. 722.

url=https://thelawdictionary.org/amendment/]Blacks legal dictionary[/url]

Regardless of whether there is a textual identifiable limit on the word “sole” (which I think there is).

Then make that case, don't just gloss over it.

How can someone lose their rights without them being specifically denied in the constitution when their specific rights are?

There needs to be a supreme court ruling. Do people accused under the process lose all of their constitutional rights ?

Yes or no ?

I see no way possible the Supreme Court could say yes . That decision would be a affront to the constitution’s core promise of inalienable rights .

Convicted people do loose rights. Accused people have a right to trial under the law by a jury of their peers. Is the current impeachment trial doing that?

Whose rights are being currently infringed, and how?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten
The way I see it is the Democrats, being in control of the House, took the literal meaning of the word "sole" in the Constitution and ran with it. Meaning? They were the only ones allowed any say by their own rules. I watched Schiff flat-out stop Republicans from participating in most of the hearings. Schiff should be tried, convicted and hung for treason for the secret meetings where Republicans and more importantly, Trump's counsel, were denied access. Why? Because if they considered that a legal proceeding, they should have afforded Trump the same legal rights he would normally have had but they didn't. My memory is foggy on the Clinton impeachment, but I think they had the standard abilities for defense, questioning witnesses, etc., right?

I believe the Democrats, specifically Schiff and Nadler severely abused their power by their actions. On one hand claiming the impeachment process is a legal process when it benefited them, but that it was a political process when it didn't so they could deny the president his constitutional rights. Their hearings were a joke, and this whole business about not naming the whistleblower is unbelievable. It's not illegal but all of them including Roberts now are shielding this supposed person's name. I don't get it. It's not illegal to do so for anyone but the initial IG. When I read that Roberts denied Rand Paul's question I was stunned. Unless I'm missing something, Roberts doesn't have that authority under the law, yet here we are. I hope Rand pushes this like he said he might.

This whole fiasco really irritates me and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it. Nothing. Our own Representatives and Senators in some cases are completely ignoring the Constitution, precedent and laws and nobody is doing anything about it. It makes me so furious I have to get away from it at times. And despite what some aholes on the Left think about we conservatives, it's not about Trump, it's about right vs. wrong.

If the Constitution says that Congress has the sole power of impeachment, and the White House are listing out all sorts of things that they say that Congress has to do (and which, for the most part, Congress has acceded to), don't you see the White House was contradicting the Constitution in that regard?

No I don't believe they did, they can't have it both ways. First, the House did not have a real case for impeachment. This was purely a vendetta, not a legitimate reason for impeachment. If it were, they wouldn't have had to conduct secret witness interviews and deny the administration access to at least be there. You could say they didn't have to. True, but in order to prevent the appearance of impropriety they should have. Problem is, the House Democrats didn't have a case that would pass the smell test and they knew it. So they pushed the limits of respectable behavior and tried to get the administration to cooperate without going to court. Why? Because they knew there wasn't a court in the world that would allow their subpoenas that were based on lies and made up information. So without the court backing the Dems, the administration did the right thing by refusing to allow the House to interview specific people.

The House wanted to do everything they could without legal oversight, which I don't think our founders actually believed would happen. Since the "high crimes and misdemeanors" was not specified, but were also put on a high level of importance, there should have been a check against a corrupt House like we've seen during this process. Not one that would necessarily overrule, but one that would guarantee a president or other high official the full legal protections they would have had in a normal legal process.

There is no honest person alive that would say the House did it right. I don't care how partisan someone is, this process has been a joke and it never should have happened this way.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I take my last statement back .

The fact that the House intelligence departed from precedent secretive and denied trumps lawyers might leave it open to review.

Here’s something I’ve been wondering about . The House filed suit over executive privilege win or loose

Did they inadvertently open the door on obstruction of justice ?

I don’t remember the name for the legal maneuver.

But it would be similar to (get this) Impeachment of evidence .

a reply to: chr0naut

My aren’t we grumpy today .

Is there a doorman that says that? No?

Joke

Then it is clear that the framers of the Constitution would never have included caveats that dealt with every nonsense scenario.

They most certainly did it’s called the bill of rights land they were clear about them.

The passage on impeachment is what isn’t clear .

That’s my whole point .

How can the very essence of what this nation was founded on be taken away without due process .


The impeachment clause is ambiguous .

Then make that case, don't just gloss over it.

Show me any article in the constitution where the framers left the room to deny anyone these rights until after Conviction .

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

5th & 14th No person shall...be deprived of life, *liberty, or property, without due process of law....

Convicted people do loose rights

Trump hasn’t been convicted

Accused people have a right to trial under the law by a jury of their peers. Is the current impeachment trial doing that?

Yes they do why doesn’t trump ?

Whose rights are being currently infringed, and how?

6th amendment right to a fair trial . Malicious prosecution it started with a biased house acting as prosecutors .

Then you’re going to say he’s receiving a fair trial in the Senate .

He’s still being prosecuted maliciously .

Sixth amendment right to confront your witness .

5th Amendment due process . House democrats Charged him with obstruction of justice without waiting for the verdict whether it was legal .

The house has the sole power to impeach.

The Senate has the sole power to try .

Nixon v US ruled solely on the power to try .

Which was procedural not substantive.

It’s time they actually made a ruling on a persons rights.