BeamMeUpScotty
2021-02-10 17:05:42 UTC
...they never have one.
Stupid right-wingnuts — we're looking at *YOU*, scooter — think,
erroneously, that they have a "gotcha!" in the word "and" in the Article
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal
from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust or profit under the United States
They don't. The word "and" does *NOT* mean that both judgments must be
imposed. The clause specifies the maximum judgment, *NOT* a minimum.
Removal, of course, is automatic, but it only is applicable for sitting
officers. It does not mean that *only* sitting officers may be
impeached and tried. That is an absurdity. Disqualification is
optional. That's what the comma following "and" tells us with
certainty, although it would be optional even without the comma.
* former civil officers, including the president, may be impeached and
tried
* removal upon conviction is only mandatory for sitting officers
* disqualification is optional, and requires a separate vote of the
Senate
The best constitutional scholars all agree.
And the Constitution.... disagrees with YOUR scholars.Stupid right-wingnuts — we're looking at *YOU*, scooter — think,
erroneously, that they have a "gotcha!" in the word "and" in the Article
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal
from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust or profit under the United States
They don't. The word "and" does *NOT* mean that both judgments must be
imposed. The clause specifies the maximum judgment, *NOT* a minimum.
Removal, of course, is automatic, but it only is applicable for sitting
officers. It does not mean that *only* sitting officers may be
impeached and tried. That is an absurdity. Disqualification is
optional. That's what the comma following "and" tells us with
certainty, although it would be optional even without the comma.
* former civil officers, including the president, may be impeached and
tried
* removal upon conviction is only mandatory for sitting officers
* disqualification is optional, and requires a separate vote of the
Senate
The best constitutional scholars all agree.
Amendment X
*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.
And there is NO power delegated to IMPEACH a CITIZEN and that's what
TRUMP is.
"former civil officers, including the president, may be impeached and
tried" means he's NO LONGER an OFFICIAL. NO WHERE DOES IT SAY
*FORMER* in regards to delegating the power of IMPEACHMENT.
Either you're repeating lies or "you are lying" so which is it?
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.
*That is a delegated power* and it says nothing about *FORMER* as in
someone who is NOW only a citizen.
It delegates no power to impeach a citizen who is *NOT THE PRESIDENT* or
the others listed which doesn't include the word *FORMER* and is NOT
Vice President and is not a civil officer.
THE IRONY IS THAT *IT MAKES THE DEMOCRATS THE ACTUAL CRIMINALS* THAT
NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
It's NOT a mistake it's collusion.
Tell us where *you* see the power that is delegated to Congress to
impeach a citizen who is NOT *The President, Vice President and all
civil Officers* and then get back to us....
--
That's karma
Banning guns and de-funding police won't lower crime if you follow the
Democrats Rhetoric. *And their very own Democrat actions confirm* that
even *they believe they're lying* since they're doing the opposite *to*
*reduce any crimes "you" might commit against the Government* that they
control and apparently they *believe guns and fences and police* *will*
*protect* them from your crime and violence. So why won't those same
things protect you from crime and violence?