Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,523 Posts
The Constitution does not provide a process of disqualifying Senators. I think it would set a very dangerous precedent if we started kicking Senators off an impeachment trial. It would call into doubt the validity of the process. The Dems would certainly try to get as many Republicans excluded as they can, and could actually gain the majority. Who would decide who was excluded? Majority vote? If so, than the 2/3 requirement for conviction is meaningless, as a simple majority could exclude all of the minority. Should it be the Chief Justice? If so, then one man really decides if a President is removed from office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
The Constitution does not provide a process of disqualifying Senators. I think it would set a very dangerous precedent if we started kicking Senators off an impeachment trial. It would call into doubt the validity of the process. The Dems would certainly try to get as many Republicans excluded as they can, and could actually gain the majority. Who would decide who was excluded? Majority vote? If so, than the 2/3 requirement for conviction is meaningless, as a simple majority could exclude all of the minority. Should it be the Chief Justice? If so, then one man really decides if a President is removed from office.
I don't know, it seems rather clear. A senator who has declared they are running for the office of president should be excluded. It's a clear conflict.

As for who should vote in their stead, that's where the issue would come in, I think. Perhaps a house member from their state? I don't know.
 

·
Why do you ask? 2 Dogs!
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
The Constitution does not provide a process of disqualifying Senators. I think it would set a very dangerous precedent if we started kicking Senators off an impeachment trial. It would call into doubt the validity of the process. The Dems would certainly try to get as many Republicans excluded as they can, and could actually gain the majority. Who would decide who was excluded? Majority vote? If so, than the 2/3 requirement for conviction is meaningless, as a simple majority could exclude all of the minority. Should it be the Chief Justice? If so, then one man really decides if a President is removed from office.
I agree with you

I think it would set a very dangerous precedent

I would almost say the we need a new amendment just to set the rules of impeachment because of the **** show the House has done

We need an improved process to remove a POTUS where party politics cannot play into the removal of an elected official

The Democrats have already set a dangerous precedent in the House and exposed a few loopholes in our system.

There is no way to hold the House accountable for their actions whether they be legal or not except at the ballot box

That being the case, POTUS should have the same accountability.

I'm all for having the entire SCOTUS oversee the process along with the Legislative Branches

Maybe even the states themselves, just like the amendment process
 

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Harmless Drudge

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
I don't know, it seems rather clear. A senator who has declared they are running for the office of president should be excluded. It's a clear conflict.

As for who should vote in their stead, that's where the issue would come in, I think. Perhaps a house member from their state? I don't know.
Whomever "voted in their stead" would have to be an impartial "voter." If the excluded Senator got to choose who would vote in his/her stead then they would clearly choose someone who would vote exactly as they would -- so the conflict of interest would still exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,610 Posts
The Constitution does not provide a process of disqualifying Senators. I think it would set a very dangerous precedent if we started kicking Senators off an impeachment trial. It would call into doubt the validity of the process. The Dems would certainly try to get as many Republicans excluded as they can, and could actually gain the majority.
I think the Dems have done a pretty good job trashing both the constitution and the validity of this particular clown show.
If the constitution does not allow for disqualifying the handful of senators with an obvious conflict of interest AND a clearly stated wish to remove Trump then it really should.
I believe all 4 of the senators still running have stated before the Ukraine call that President Trump needs to be impeached, under normal circumstances that would be enough to call their impartiality into question... add to that the fact that they are trying to win the job and throwing mud on Trump would help achieve that goal, any reasonable person would see the conflict.
Who would decide who was excluded? SNIP.

The presiding judge would make that call (if removal were allowed) which is the Chief Justice John Roberts.

I think removing senators with conflict of interest and impartiality issues would help with the perceived validity of the case not hurt it.
IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,077 Posts
The ones running for President have a very clear conflict of interest in the outcome. Roberts could voir dure each one out like on any jury anywhere, and he should.

https://www.redstate.com/sister-tol...nning-for-president-recuse-impeachment-trial/
I was wondering if anyone would bring this up. HAvent heard a peep from the media. Trump asking ukraine to investigate biden is a conflict of interest, but dem senators voting to remove trump from office isnt?

Laughable.
 

·
Dog Lives Matter
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
I was wondering if anyone would bring this up. HAvent heard a peep from the media. Trump asking ukraine to investigate biden is a conflict of interest, but dem senators voting to remove trump from office isnt?

Laughable.
I just watched several new CNN and MSNBC videos on YouTube while looking for information on this topic.

The media is loaded for bear and has ramped up the distortions of fact and misrepresentations of what people are saying. To them, the evidence against the president is overwhelming, and that is what they will continue to drill into the American people. What they are doing is way beyond belief and a new low, even for bottom-feeding Dummocrats.

Even though the Senate should deal with this fairly, the media will not. The ball for the kangaroo court has been passed to the media.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top