19 Jan 21
@no1marauder said"So the Senate rejected the idea that a Senator was "a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States"
OMG.
I already cited the provision in Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution which says each house of Congress can discipline and even expel a member. Try reading the Constitution for a change.
He was no longer a senator, so of course he was not a civil officer. You have to be in office to be a civil officer.
You are claiming that applies to any senator. What is your source of information?
19 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidA unanimous House and a majority of the Senate disagreed with your assertion in the Belknap case.
"So the Senate rejected the idea that a Senator was "a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States"
He was no longer a senator, so of course he was not a civil officer. You have to be in office to be a civil officer.
You are claiming that applies to any senator. What is your source of information?
Why should I accept the claim of someone as ignorant of the Constitution as you over them?
19 Jan 21
The provision regarding who can be impeached is in Article II, which regards the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch (which is covered in Article I). It states:
"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."
Article II, Section 4
There is already a provision in Article I, Section 5 regarding the power of each house of Congress to expel members. Unlike impeachment, it gives such power to each house alone.
Your ranting and hold yer breath until you turn blue strategy does not override reasoned interpretation of the text of the Constitution using well established principles. No one has seriously asserted that Senators or House members could be impeached in over 220 years and I know of no Constitutional scholar expressing such a strange view.
@metal-brain saidAbbott: No, obviously contradiction is on third base. Moron is on second. I'm wondering who's on first.
It is an obvious contradiction except for morons.
Costello: Impeachment's on first base. It's been explained to you 200 times in this thread.
20 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidIt's not needed for members of Congress. It's needed for:
You didn't copy and paste anything to prove it.
Why the need for impeachment then?
""The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,"
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidIt says the President, not the former president.
The provision regarding who can be impeached is in Article II, which regards the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch (which is covered in Article I). It states:
"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." ...[text shortened]... impeached in over 220 years and I know of no Constitutional scholar expressing such a strange view.
Blount was not a civil officer because he was no longer in office. Your assertion that senators cannot be impeached is not supported by the constitution or any precedent. You are simply claiming a precedent exists where there is none and you have nothing to back it up.
" No one has seriously asserted that Senators or House members could be impeached in over 220 years and I know of no Constitutional scholar expressing such a strange view."
So now it is house reps too? What about Belknap? You claimed he was precedent for impeachment out of office and now you are claiming he cannot be impeached.
You are contradicting yourself. Make up your feeble mind.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidThen why impeach Belknap if it is not needed?
It's not needed for members of Congress. It's needed for:
""The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,"
The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency.
20 Jan 21
@wildgrass saidApparently you are on second.
Abbott: No, obviously contradiction is on third base. Moron is on second. I'm wondering who's on first.
Costello: Impeachment's on first base. It's been explained to you 200 times in this thread.
Still sore about losing the bet I see.
20 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidJesus Christ. Belknap wasn't a Senator or Congressman, you moron; he was the ex-Secretary of War.
It says the President, not the former president.
Blount was not a civil officer because he was no longer in office. Your assertion that senators cannot be impeached is not supported by the constitution or any precedent. You are simply claiming a precedent exists where there is none and you have nothing to back it up.
" No one has seriously asserted that Senators or ...[text shortened]... u are claiming he cannot be impeached.
You are contradicting yourself. Make up your feeble mind.
The article YOU cited said that the Blount case WAS precedent for the proposition that Senators can't be impeached. Read the f***ing thing.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidRead it yourself. I showed you that it said they didn't know why the senate voted the way it did. Nothing in the senate statement indicates that it set that precedent at all.
Jesus Christ. Belknap wasn't a Senator or Congressman, you moron; he was the ex-Secretary of War.
The article YOU cited said that the Blount case WAS precedent for the proposition that Senators can't be impeached. Read the f***ing thing.
The article is contradictory and is probably just parroting another source that is a mere interpretation. In fact, the article says that it is an interpretation.
Read it again. You have no proof that such a precedent was established. All you have is a weak interpretation.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidBelknap wasn't a civil officer, you moron.
Jesus Christ. Belknap wasn't a Senator or Congressman, you moron; he was the ex-Secretary of War.
The article YOU cited said that the Blount case WAS precedent for the proposition that Senators can't be impeached. Read the f***ing thing.
He was not in office. DUH!
Blount wasn't a civil officer, you moron.
He was not in office. DUH!
@metal-brain saidWas Belknap impeached? Yup. And the majority of Senators present voted to convict, so both the House and Senate in 1876 disagreed with your foot stamping, unsupported claim.
Belknap wasn't a civil officer, you moron.
He was not in office. DUH!
Blount wasn't a civil officer, you moron.
He was not in office. DUH!
You're making a complete fool of yourself (again).
20 Jan 21
And MB, I wouldn't be so sure Trump won't be convicted in the Senate trial you keep insisting won't happen. Here's what Moscow Mitch said today:
""The mob was fed lies," McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on the Senate floor. "They were provoked by the President and other powerful people."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-capitol-hill-mob-was-provoked-by-trump/ar-BB1cTvn5