Our S.C. ignored the proper venue to try President for crimes (presidential immunity case)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is absolutely no way the Founders intended any political body made up of elected representatives, to adjudicate criminal or civil trials. Positively no way.
Well, let us take a look at what our Constitution states with reference to trying a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
The fact is, the House did Act on January 25, 2021, and filed H. RES. 24 with the Senate, charging Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
This is the first step, under our Constitution to deal with a President who is alleged to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”).
And under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors”
And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors”.
And on February 13, 2021, Trump was acquitted of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE
.
Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, as provided by our Constitution, the Senate could have then disqualified Trump to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, and being convicted by the Senate, the door would also have then been opened to his being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7) But the Senate, exercising its sole power to try the President, acquitted him.
So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities did our hate Trump crowd lawfully indict and then prosecute Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which is infested with our hate-Trump crowd, when the constitutionally authorized venue to try the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the Senate of the United States, under which he had already been acquitted?
To answer your question, we ought to go with the text of our written Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text.
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
.
You're initial starting premise is that you have correct information and are interpreting it correctly.
I'm merely stating that I trust someone like oh, the Chief Justice to understand that better than some anonymous poster that picked their user name based on a crappy action movie.
To answer your question, we ought to go with the text of our written Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text.
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
.
By definition, SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. You may disagree with what SCOTUS says, but absent a change in the law or a decision by SCOTUS to rehear the case, the decision stands and is the final word on what the Constitution means.
Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
By definition, SCOTUS is the ultimate authority . . .
In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.
So, what was the proper venue to try Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” . . . the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or, the United States Senate, which appears to have "sole power" to try "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted Trump of the charges?
In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.
So, what was the proper venue to try Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” . . . the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or, the United States Senate, which appears to have "sole power" to try "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted Trump of the charges?
.
It does not matter what we think. The only thing that matters is what SCOTUS thinks.
My take is that the Senate does NOT have sole power to try a President for high crimes and misdemeanors, the Senate can only remove a President from office. Any criminal charges are tried in the Federal courts.
Smith v US is not on point for Presidential immunity.
S.C., in a unanimous ruling, confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
It does not matter what we think. The only thing that matters is what SCOTUS thinks.
My take is that the Senate does NOT have sole power to try a President for high crimes and misdemeanors, the Senate can only remove a President from office. Any criminal charges are tried in the Federal courts.
Smith v US is not on point for Presidential immunity.
In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.
Under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors”
And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted him of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE
Had Trump been found guilty of the "high crimes and misdemeanors” as charged, that would have opened the door to Trump being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7) But the Senate, exercising its sole power to try the President, acquitted him.
So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities did our hate Trump crowd lawfully indict and then prosecute Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which is infested with our hate-Trump crowd, when the constitutionally authorized venue to try the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the Senate of the United States, under which he had already been acquitted?
What are impeachable offenses Trump is accused of commiting on Jan. 6th, 2021?
.
What were considered impeachable offenses by our Founders, over which the United States Senate was delegated “sole power” to try and convict and accused party?
The historical evidence found HERE, confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are those considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated "sole power" to try and convict an accused party.
The D.C. District Court is the wrong venue for such a trial and violates our Constitution’s text and legislative intent.
.
What were considered impeachable offenses by our Founders, over which the United States Senate was delegated “sole power” to try and convict and accused party?
The historical evidence found HERE, confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are those considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated "sole power" to try and convict an accused party.
The D.C. District Court is the wrong venue for such a trial and violates our Constitution’s text and legislative intent.
.
.
Congress can only remove a President from office. Impeachment results have zero impact on charges in a criminal court. There is nothing to prevent a Federal criminal court or a state criminal court from charging a President with crimes and then prosecuting. Impeachment is a civil process that has nothing to do with criminal charges.
The only thing stopping a sitting President from prosecution is the Justice Department's decision to not prosecute sitting Presidents.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits prosecution of a President, especially after they leave office.
.
What were considered impeachable offenses by our Founders, over which the United States Senate was delegated “sole power” to try and convict and accused party?
The historical evidence found HERE, confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are those considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated "sole power" to try and convict an accused party.
The D.C. District Court is the wrong venue for such a trial and violates our Constitution’s text and legislative intent.
.
.
The grand jury was prepared to indict Nixon on criminal charges until he was pardoned by Ford.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated.
