US Senate's Decision To Impeach

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

.
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.

.
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.
_

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.

Is calling some one a hillbilly considered racist?

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.

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.

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.
_

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.

.
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.
_

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.

.



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.
_