US Senate's Decision To Impeach

[Webers.Home]

.
Former US President Donald Trump's impeachment isn't Constitutional,
which is precisely why Chief Justice Roberts is taking no part in it.

The vote to construe Mr. Trump's impeachment as Constitutional wasn't a
legislative vote, rather, it was an opinion vote; i.e. a poll. In other words, at
this point in time, the US Senate is a kangaroo court, i.e. a lynch mob, just as
it was in 1876 when it tried Secretary of War William Belknap after he resigned.

Also: the decision to impeach Mr. Trump, if successful, opens the door for
impeaching all past, out of office, US Presidents; including Mr. Richard
Nixon, who himself resigned rather than be forced out of office. In point of
fact, the impeachment process was originally designed to remove a US
President from office. Mr. Trump is already out; same as Mr. Nixon was and
same as Mr. Belknap.

Normally guilty verdicts rendered by the US Senate when impeaching a US
President cannot be appealed. But this time, the accused is a private citizen;
which means Mr. Trump may have solid legal grounds for an appeal should
this fiasco go south on him.

In my opinion; the United States government is behaving like uneducated
hillbillies in this matter, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the
world is thinking about our stability right about now.
_

 

[LightOfAWing]

Everything about this "impeachment" is absolutely wrong. Not to mention stupid.
Wait until they find out what information Trump has on THEM. True information.
Oh how the tables will turn.
Let's just say that this whole "impeachment " thing won't matter.
You are correct in everything you stated.

 

[HillsboroMom]

.
Former US President Donald Trump's impeachment isn't Constitutional,

Can you please quote the section, paragraph, or portion of the US Constitution which states that former US President Trump's impeachment isn't constitutional? TIA.

The vote to construe Mr. Trump's impeachment as Constitutional wasn't a
legislative vote, rather, it was an opinion vote; i.e. a poll.

Except that it was conducted in the US Senate, which means that it was, by definition, a legislative vote.

I mean, I see your point. They asked the Senators what the Senators thought, and some of the Senators said "Yea" and some said "Nay."

But that's what all legislative votes are.

So, if you're going to say that any time you ask Senators what their opinion is, it's an "opinion poll," then every law that has ever been put up for vote in EITHER house has been such. That's exactly what happens every time.

For example, "Should we give the constitutional right to vote, confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, extend the Commission on Civil Rights, prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and other purposes?"

That's the Civil Rights Act of 1964, BTW. It was an opinion poll. It passed.

Here's another one: "Should we authorize the President to increase temporarily the military establishment of the United States?" Selective Service Act of 1917.

Or a personal favorite of mine: "Should we deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes?"
Patriot Act of 2001.

That one was close to unanimous. But it was still an opinion poll. Yea or Nay.

Are you saying that Senate should not have the right to vote on legislation? Or are you just saying you don't like it when they do so in ways that you, personally, don't like?

Hint: it's not a "kangaroo court" when it disagrees with you, and "just fine and dandy" when it does. It is functioning exactly as it always has. It won't always come out the way you want. It won't always come out the way I want. That's what happens. But voting is how business gets done in this country, and if you don't like it, I have some lovely land in Iran for you.

Also: the decision to impeach Mr. Trump, if successful, opens the door for
impeaching all past, out of office, US Presidents; including Mr. Richard
Nixon, who himself resigned rather than be forced out of office. In point of
fact, the impeachment process was originally designed to remove a US
President from office. Mr. Trump is already out; same as Mr. Nixon was and
same as Mr. Belknap.

The law of habeus corpus still remains in effect. And unless you're going to dig up Nixon's or Belknap's grave and have their bones sitting there, you still can't try a dead person, whether it's impeachment, criminal court, civil court, or any other matter.

Though heck, I wouldn't put it past some enterprising devil to televise a pay-per-view of a Nixon trial. I'd pay $1.99 to watch that.

In my opinion; the United States government is behaving like uneducated
hillbillies in this matter, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the
world is thinking about our stability right about now.

The uneducated hillbillies are the ones who attacked the capitol on 1/6.

And I will tell you exactly what the rest of the world thinks about our stability.

In 2016, the rest of the free world was in shock when Trump won. They were deeply disturbed. Their fears materialized over the next 4 years as they watched Trump and his family undo decades of diplomatic ties.

The only exception was Putin. He were thrilled. No one knows exactly why Russia wanted Trump in power. There were rumors that Putin has some secret, and he has Trump by the short hairs. We don't know the why, but we do know the Russian government went to great lengths and expense to get Trump elected in 2016. We know this for a fact now, that they were behind multiple hacks into Facebook and other social media. This is not conjecture, it is proved and known, that Russia influenced the 2016 election to help Trump win. And they tried to do it in 2020, but failed. They were disappointed that it didn't work.

The rest of the world -- the free world, that is -- was thrilled. Church bells rang throughout Europe when the news came out that Trump lost. The rest of the world is taking a huge sigh of relief. The US came to its senses.

The trial is necessary, to send a message to the rest of the world that we do not put up with insurrection, that traitors are not tolerated.

And that we are, and will remain, a democratic republic, not a 3rd-world country led by a despot.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Can you please quote the section, paragraph, or portion of the US Constitution which states that former US President Trump's impeachment isn't constitutional? TIA.

Article II
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Only a sitting president is subject to impeachment, and that too for some very series crimes. Trump is now a private citizen who has been denied due process under the Constitution. And the charges brought against him in a true court of law would be dismissed as "frivolous".

The bogus of impeachment of Trump is only for *ONE CRIME* -- Trump won the 2020 election hands down. The Deep State and the Democrats already had a conspiracy in place since 2016 to impeach Trump on frivolous grounds, or no grounds. And that is what we are seeing in this sham impeachment. But before that the world saw the greatest crime of the century -- THE THEFT OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. And absolutely nothing was done about it since the entire government was a part of this conspiracy (included SCOTUS).

Hint: it's not a "kangaroo court" when it disagrees with you, and "just fine and dandy" when it does.

That's a glib way of addressing the nonsense that has been perpetrated by the Democrats by in fact setting up a kangaroo court not once but twice. The politicians had absolutely no basis for their sham impeachments, and just as Trump was exonerated the first time, he will also be exonerated again.

The uneducated hillbillies are the ones who attacked the capitol on 1/6.

You should know better than to post Fake News. The storming of the capitol was PRE-PLANNED and the FBI has confirmed this. Furthermore it was not hillbillies but domestic terrorists connected with BLM and Antifa who were the prime instigators (possibly along with some misguided Trump supporters). And only about 50 people were involved). And it was not an *attack* since the capitol police were literally ushering these idiots into the capitol, while an insider had informed them as to exactly where certain offices were located. Hence the entry into Pelosi's office, and other offices.

What you and all other anti-Trumpers refuse to acknowledge is that (1) there is absolutely nothing in Trump's speech to even hint at violence or storming, (2) Trump was not even finished speaking before the BLM/Antifa gang entered the capitol, and (3) there were about 500,000 peaceful citizens who had gathered well away from the capitol to hear Trump. These law-abiding citizens have been subjected to the false accusation of "extremists" and "terrorists" when all through 2020 the Democrats were encouraging the real domestic terrorists who were destroying the cities while everyone stood by. The blatant hypocrisy of the Left is sickening.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The rest of the world -- the free world, that is -- was thrilled. Church bells rang throughout Europe when the news came out that Trump lost. The rest of the world is taking a huge sigh of relief. The US came to its senses.

The trial is necessary, to send a message to the rest of the world that we do not put up with insurrection, that traitors are not tolerated.

And that we are, and will remain, a democratic republic, not a 3rd-world country led by a despot.

From across the Atlantic. You're dead wrong. Our MSM hated Trump. Many genocidal globalists in government positions hated him.
The majority of the people here liked him.

Terrorist supporters & haters of nation states hated him with a passion. Normal people thought he was terrific.
America looked friendly again under President Donald Trump.

Since the Biden seizure of power we have been covering our heads, wondering which country The USA will bomb first.
America now looks like anything but a democratic republic.

Understand that the world DID witness the seizure of power and trampling of democracy under the Biden puppet.
YOU CAN'T FAKE IT.

 

[notuptome]

And that we are, and will remain, a democratic republic, not a 3rd-world country led by a despot.

We are a constitutional republic not a democratic republic.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Roughsoul1991]

.
Former US President Donald Trump's impeachment isn't Constitutional,
which is precisely why Chief Justice Roberts is taking no part in it.

The vote to construe Mr. Trump's impeachment as Constitutional wasn't a
legislative vote, rather, it was an opinion vote; i.e. a poll. In other words, at
this point in time, the US Senate is a kangaroo court, i.e. a lynch mob, just as
it was in 1876 when it tried Secretary of War William Belknap after he resigned.

Also: the decision to impeach Mr. Trump, if successful, opens the door for
impeaching all past, out of office, US Presidents; including Mr. Richard
Nixon, who himself resigned rather than be forced out of office. In point of
fact, the impeachment process was originally designed to remove a US
President from office. Mr. Trump is already out; same as Mr. Nixon was and
same as Mr. Belknap.

Normally guilty verdicts rendered by the US Senate when impeaching a US
President cannot be appealed. But this time, the accused is a private citizen;
which means Mr. Trump may have solid legal grounds for an appeal should
this fiasco go south on him.

In my opinion; the United States government is behaving like uneducated
hillbillies in this matter, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the
world is thinking about our stability right about now.
_

Hey hey now, you are giving them too much credibility calling them hillbillies. Hillbillies can be quite educated in music, in chemical and mathematical measurements for making moonshine ( quite a delicate process) they are skilled mechanically to run moonshine. They are educated in nature and the ways of God in nature. If you threaten an animal's home, it may attack you. Boom you have been taught the 2nd Amendment by natural design.

You are giving the majority of our government too much credibility. I believe a government filled with hillbillies would be a lot better than the evil we have in the majority.

 

[Al-Tekoa]

Hey hey now, you are giving them too much credibility calling them hillbillies. Hillbillies can be quite educated in music, in chemical and mathematical measurements for making moonshine ( quite a delicate process) they are skilled mechanically to run moonshine. They are educated in nature and the ways of God in nature. If you threaten an animal's home, it may attack you. Boom you have been taught the 2nd Amendment by natural design.

You are giving the majority of our government too much credibility. I believe a government filled with hillbillies would be a lot better than the evil we have in the majority.

.
Lolz Your missive reminded me of the great quote;

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
.

 

[CS1]

.
Former US President Donald Trump's impeachment isn't Constitutional,
which is precisely why Chief Justice Roberts is taking no part in it.

The vote to construe Mr. Trump's impeachment as Constitutional wasn't a
legislative vote, rather, it was an opinion vote; i.e. a poll. In other words, at
this point in time, the US Senate is a kangaroo court, i.e. a lynch mob, just as
it was in 1876 when it tried Secretary of War William Belknap after he resigned.

Also: the decision to impeach Mr. Trump, if successful, opens the door for
impeaching all past, out of office, US Presidents; including Mr. Richard
Nixon, who himself resigned rather than be forced out of office. In point of
fact, the impeachment process was originally designed to remove a US
President from office. Mr. Trump is already out; same as Mr. Nixon was and
same as Mr. Belknap.

Normally guilty verdicts rendered by the US Senate when impeaching a US
President cannot be appealed. But this time, the accused is a private citizen;
which means Mr. Trump may have solid legal grounds for an appeal should
this fiasco go south on him.

In my opinion; the United States government is behaving like uneducated
hillbillies in this matter, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the
world is thinking about our stability right about now.
_

You want is sad, is the senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said this is and act of conscience . It has to be because it is not law.

Maxine waters, Eric Swalwell, Nancy Pelois, Kamala Harris , and many more did what They are saying Trump did. Yet their moral superiority doesn't include them.

 

[DWR]

Can you please quote the section, paragraph, or portion of the US Constitution which states that former US President Trump's impeachment isn't constitutional? TIA.



Except that it was conducted in the US Senate, which means that it was, by definition, a legislative vote.

I mean, I see your point. They asked the Senators what the Senators thought, and some of the Senators said "Yea" and some said "Nay."

But that's what all legislative votes are.

So, if you're going to say that any time you ask Senators what their opinion is, it's an "opinion poll," then every law that has ever been put up for vote in EITHER house has been such. That's exactly what happens every time.

For example, "Should we give the constitutional right to vote, confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, extend the Commission on Civil Rights, prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and other purposes?"

That's the Civil Rights Act of 1964, BTW. It was an opinion poll. It passed.

Here's another one: "Should we authorize the President to increase temporarily the military establishment of the United States?" Selective Service Act of 1917.

Or a personal favorite of mine: "Should we deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes?"
Patriot Act of 2001.

That one was close to unanimous. But it was still an opinion poll. Yea or Nay.

Are you saying that Senate should not have the right to vote on legislation? Or are you just saying you don't like it when they do so in ways that you, personally, don't like?

Hint: it's not a "kangaroo court" when it disagrees with you, and "just fine and dandy" when it does. It is functioning exactly as it always has. It won't always come out the way you want. It won't always come out the way I want. That's what happens. But voting is how business gets done in this country, and if you don't like it, I have some lovely land in Iran for you.



The law of habeus corpus still remains in effect. And unless you're going to dig up Nixon's or Belknap's grave and have their bones sitting there, you still can't try a dead person, whether it's impeachment, criminal court, civil court, or any other matter.

Though heck, I wouldn't put it past some enterprising devil to televise a pay-per-view of a Nixon trial. I'd pay $1.99 to watch that.



The uneducated hillbillies are the ones who attacked the capitol on 1/6.

And I will tell you exactly what the rest of the world thinks about our stability.

In 2016, the rest of the free world was in shock when Trump won. They were deeply disturbed. Their fears materialized over the next 4 years as they watched Trump and his family undo decades of diplomatic ties.

The only exception was Putin. He were thrilled. No one knows exactly why Russia wanted Trump in power. There were rumors that Putin has some secret, and he has Trump by the short hairs. We don't know the why, but we do know the Russian government went to great lengths and expense to get Trump elected in 2016. We know this for a fact now, that they were behind multiple hacks into Facebook and other social media. This is not conjecture, it is proved and known, that Russia influenced the 2016 election to help Trump win. And they tried to do it in 2020, but failed. They were disappointed that it didn't work.

The rest of the world -- the free world, that is -- was thrilled. Church bells rang throughout Europe when the news came out that Trump lost. The rest of the world is taking a huge sigh of relief. The US came to its senses.

The trial is necessary, to send a message to the rest of the world that we do not put up with insurrection, that traitors are not tolerated.

And that we are, and will remain, a democratic republic, not a 3rd-world country led by a despot.

Well we are now run by a bunch of despots. Us dumb hilbillies can see it while you have been blinded by your unbiased news site you watch.

Is calling some one a hillbilly considered racist?

 

[DWR]

These people in power do not care if it is constitutional or not. They were in total shock and disbelief when Killery lost to Trump. They immediately began the process to NEVER lose another election. THEY refers to the big money people who can buy almost every politician they chose.

They bought off all the Democrats running against Biden because they knew he would do exactly as they say.
They are dictating every thing this senile old man is saying and doing, alone with the leadership in the house and senate.

They have began the purge that will eliminate all opposition just a Hitler did. Don't be surprised when they resort to violence, arrest, and imprisonment when necessary.

And half the nation is to blind to see and are encouraging them to continue.

 

[HillsboroMom]

Is calling some one a hillbilly considered racist?

I don't think so. Hillbillies can be any race.

You can ask Webers whether he intended it that way, since he's the one who brought it up first

 

[Webers.Home]

.

The law of habeus corpus still remains in effect. And unless you're going to
dig up Nixon's or Belknap's grave and have their bones sitting there, you still
can't try a dead person, whether it's impeachment, criminal court, civil
court, or any other matter.

Can you please quote the section, paragraph, or portion of the US
Constitution which states that deceased US presidents are exempt from
impeachment?

It is common practice-- within Local, State, and Federal government, and
among private citizens --to assume that if something isn't explicitly
forbidden by law, then it's okay to do it.

For example: seeing as how the US Constitution doesn't exempt deceased
US presidents from impeachment, then impeaching a deceased US
president, and/or a living former president no longer in office; said
impeachment doesn't violate the US Constitution, i.e. in the minds of the
prosecutors, the impeachment isn't unconstitutional.

That kind of convoluted sophistry is very difficult for us common folk to
accept without question.

The trial is necessary, to send a message to the rest of the world that we do
not put up with insurrection, that traitors are not tolerated.

The true instigators of the alleged insurrection are not on trial. Mr. Trump is
being lynched, i.e. he's being made a fall guy.

FYI: These days "traitor" has been redefined as someone who opposes the left.

And that we are, and will remain, a democratic republic, not a 3rd-world
country led by a despot.

Despotism is defined as a form of government in which power is
concentrated in the hands of one individual.

Mr. Trump was not even close to governing America like that. He was
subject to our current system of checks and balances. For examples of true
despotism one only need examine the management practices of the current
boss of North Korea, Mr. Kim Jong-un.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.

Is calling some one a hillbilly considered racist?

My remark in post No.1 is limited to uneducated hillbillies rather than them
all regardless of schooling and/or IQ.

Now, had I said Irish hillbillies, that would've been racist because Webster's
defines "race" as any one of the groups that humans are often divided into
based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared
ancestry.
_

 

[HillsboroMom]

.



My remark in post No.1 is limited to uneducated hillbillies rather than them
all regardless of schooling and/or IQ.

Now, had I said Irish hillbillies, that would've been racist because Webster's
defines "race" as any one of the groups that humans are often divided into
based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared
ancestry.
_

I agree with that.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

It is common practice-- within Local, State, and Federal government, and
among private citizens --to assume that if something isn't explicitly
forbidden by law, then it's okay to do it.

I just learned recently that the 10th Amendment applies in situations like
this.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people."

The key word in that is "delegated".

In a nutshell: the federal government has only those powers delegated to it
by the Constitution. Seeing as how the Constitution doesn't delegate power
to the federal government to impeach a former President; then it has no
right to.

In other words: the Constitution has to say that it's okay for the federal
government to impeach a former public officer. The Constitution's silence on
the matter is not a green light to proceed, rather, it's just the opposite;
which means that if my understanding of the 10th Amendment is correct,
then Mr. Trump's impeachment is illegal and no more Constitutional than a
necktie party.

Also-- if my understanding of the 10th Amendment is correct --then had
Chief Justice Roberts chosen to preside over the impeachment of a former
president, he would've been overstepping the law because the Constitution
only delegates him to preside over the impeachments of presidents in office.

This is really big, and if Mr. Trump's lawyers have overlooked it; then shame
on them.
_

 

[kaylagrl]

.
Former US President Donald Trump's impeachment isn't Constitutional,
which is precisely why Chief Justice Roberts is taking no part in it.

The vote to construe Mr. Trump's impeachment as Constitutional wasn't a
legislative vote, rather, it was an opinion vote; i.e. a poll. In other words, at
this point in time, the US Senate is a kangaroo court, i.e. a lynch mob, just as
it was in 1876 when it tried Secretary of War William Belknap after he resigned.

Also: the decision to impeach Mr. Trump, if successful, opens the door for
impeaching all past, out of office, US Presidents; including Mr. Richard
Nixon, who himself resigned rather than be forced out of office. In point of
fact, the impeachment process was originally designed to remove a US
President from office. Mr. Trump is already out; same as Mr. Nixon was and
same as Mr. Belknap.

Normally guilty verdicts rendered by the US Senate when impeaching a US
President cannot be appealed. But this time, the accused is a private citizen;
which means Mr. Trump may have solid legal grounds for an appeal should
this fiasco go south on him.

In my opinion; the United States government is behaving like uneducated
hillbillies in this matter, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the
world is thinking about our stability right about now.
_

I felt his lawyers did a good job yesterday, from the bit that I saw. My mother watched the entire thing and said they did a great job. I particularly liked where they showed videos using their own words against them. Thought that was a nice touch.

 

[kaylagrl]

Can you please quote the section, paragraph, or portion of the US Constitution which states that former US President Trump's impeachment isn't constitutional? TIA.



Except that it was conducted in the US Senate, which means that it was, by definition, a legislative vote.

I mean, I see your point. They asked the Senators what the Senators thought, and some of the Senators said "Yea" and some said "Nay."

But that's what all legislative votes are.

So, if you're going to say that any time you ask Senators what their opinion is, it's an "opinion poll," then every law that has ever been put up for vote in EITHER house has been such. That's exactly what happens every time.

For example, "Should we give the constitutional right to vote, confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, extend the Commission on Civil Rights, prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and other purposes?"

That's the Civil Rights Act of 1964, BTW. It was an opinion poll. It passed.

Here's another one: "Should we authorize the President to increase temporarily the military establishment of the United States?" Selective Service Act of 1917.

Or a personal favorite of mine: "Should we deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes?"
Patriot Act of 2001.

That one was close to unanimous. But it was still an opinion poll. Yea or Nay.

Are you saying that Senate should not have the right to vote on legislation? Or are you just saying you don't like it when they do so in ways that you, personally, don't like?

Hint: it's not a "kangaroo court" when it disagrees with you, and "just fine and dandy" when it does. It is functioning exactly as it always has. It won't always come out the way you want. It won't always come out the way I want. That's what happens. But voting is how business gets done in this country, and if you don't like it, I have some lovely land in Iran for you.



The law of habeus corpus still remains in effect. And unless you're going to dig up Nixon's or Belknap's grave and have their bones sitting there, you still can't try a dead person, whether it's impeachment, criminal court, civil court, or any other matter.

Though heck, I wouldn't put it past some enterprising devil to televise a pay-per-view of a Nixon trial. I'd pay $1.99 to watch that.



The uneducated hillbillies are the ones who attacked the capitol on 1/6.

And I will tell you exactly what the rest of the world thinks about our stability.

In 2016, the rest of the free world was in shock when Trump won. They were deeply disturbed. Their fears materialized over the next 4 years as they watched Trump and his family undo decades of diplomatic ties.

The only exception was Putin. He were thrilled. No one knows exactly why Russia wanted Trump in power. There were rumors that Putin has some secret, and he has Trump by the short hairs. We don't know the why, but we do know the Russian government went to great lengths and expense to get Trump elected in 2016. We know this for a fact now, that they were behind multiple hacks into Facebook and other social media. This is not conjecture, it is proved and known, that Russia influenced the 2016 election to help Trump win. And they tried to do it in 2020, but failed. They were disappointed that it didn't work.

The rest of the world -- the free world, that is -- was thrilled. Church bells rang throughout Europe when the news came out that Trump lost. The rest of the world is taking a huge sigh of relief. The US came to its senses.

The trial is necessary, to send a message to the rest of the world that we do not put up with insurrection, that traitors are not tolerated.

And that we are, and will remain, a democratic republic, not a 3rd-world country led by a despot.

Ted Cruz is a constitutional law expert and lawyer, I'd say he'd know whether it's constitutional or not. He says it isn't.

 

[CS1]

.



I just learned recently that the 10th Amendment applies in situations like
this.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people."

The key word in that is "delegated".

In a nutshell: the federal government has only those powers delegated to it
by the Constitution. Seeing as how the Constitution doesn't delegate power
to the federal government to impeach a former President; then it has no
right to.

In other words: the Constitution has to say that it's okay for the federal
government to impeach a former public officer. The Constitution's silence on
the matter is not a green light to proceed, rather, it's just the opposite;
which means that if my understanding of the 10th Amendment is correct,
then Mr. Trump's impeachment is illegal and no more Constitutional than a
necktie party.

Also-- if my understanding of the 10th Amendment is correct --then had
Chief Justice Roberts chosen to preside over the impeachment oformer
president, he would've been overstepping the law because the Constitution
only delegates him to preside over the impeachments of presidents in office.

This is really big, and if Mr. Trump's lawyers have overlooked it; then shame
on them.
_

there is only one thing you have to see that this impeachment is a sham NO Supreme Court Justice. That is it. Only a fool would look past that fact. If that doesn't do it for one, then look at the Chair in place of the SCJOTS P. Leahy who has already said he would vote for impeachment. Please tell me where is this right? IF they can do this to a former POTUS just because they have the majority they can do it to anyone.

 

[Billyd]

I like to watch Neil Cavuto Saturday mornings. This morning I got a good snapshot of the monkey show going on in the senate. Fifteen minutes was about all I could stand. I'm tired of paying congress for these antics. I vote for putting ten democrats and ten republicans in a cage, put them on bread and water, turn off the cameras, turn out the lights, and leave them there until all twenty can agree on a verdict.