Good points. Agreed on McConnell as a "trail blazer" of
Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:58pm

new and previously unthinkable destinations. I'd never wager on McConnell NOT daring to ignore a criminal conviction of a sitting POTUS or ignoring clear and provable treason.

  • SES asks a question. If a sitting president can be indicted, then why would there even be a process for impeachment? But the answer is in the purpose of impeachment. Impeachment isn't about criminal... more
    • ...Federalist 69, where in assuring people that a President would not be "untouchable", as the King had been, he said that a President could be impeached, removed from office, and would THEN be... more
      • However...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 2:08pm will note in the Constitution that nowhere does it state that impeachment must be done prior to indictment. I think that everyone involved would prefer it to run that way. But given the nature ... more
        • I think we can consider an explaination ofSprout, Fri Mar 1 2:11pm
          the verbiage in the constitution BY someone who was involved in the writing of the thing, it is a bit more valid of an explanation than one written 200 years later.
          • needs, wants, and ideas as to HOW the constitution would be written, many compromises made. There's NO question that Hamilton's views were what he wrote. That does NOT mean that was the FINAL... more
            • explained that verbiage differently?
              • asking about something that is truly irrelevant to the discussion, itself, or the point made.
                • verbiage by someone who was actually involved in selecting the verbiage... To me, that is sufficient to reach a conclusion pending any other evidence being offered. You, among others, are suggesting... more
                  • think that your opinion is CORRECT. Unless, of course, it's a subject that you feel strongly about, apparently. Like, "The President is guilty of a Campaign Finance violation, which is a... more
                  • WHO the hell do you and SES think that you are that you can arbitrarily declare something you BELIEVE as FACT and no one can dispute you when ACTUAL experts cannot agree on it ????? I don't have to... more
                    • This isn't rocket science...Sprout, Mon Mar 4 9:13am
                      We have an explanation by someone who was there. We have opinions by board posters... Which should we give more credibility to? I know you would PREFER to give more credibility to whatever position... more
                    • are somehow the be all and end all of discussion just because one of them wrote something in particular that bolsters your argument ??? The... more
                      • "The Federalist Papers ill serves judicial opinion writing when cited for anything but analyzing the largest constitutional structures and their purposes "...yeah, like impeachment and how a sitting... more
                        • Your Analysis Ignores...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 9:56am
                          ...a glaring hole. What if the President were indicted, but refused to leave office? What recourse would we have? The whole government could collapse! We need a way to remove a President from office, ... more
                          • Amadeus: "I would wager that the Federalist Papers offer no argument about the prosecution and indictment of the President for two reasons." That's incorrect. In TWO PLACES, the Federalist Papers say ... more
                            • Thanks For The Correction...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:25am
                              The first reference (#65) actually uses "still be liable" which indicates a continuing state of vulnerability to prosecution. The second (#69) presupposes that impeachment would come first, and then... more
                              • Ah, and there's the rub, as they say.SES, Mon Mar 4 11:36am
                                I can point to what the Constitution actually says, and to the words of Alexander Hamilton, to support my position. The other position can only SPECULATE based on what is NOT in the Constitution, and ... more
                                • Ironically...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:46am
                         are not pointing to what the Constitution says. You are pointing to a blank spot. The Constitution does NOT say, for example: "The President must be impeached and removed from office before... more
                                  • with the diametrically opposed arguments of the experts... Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically. In the end,... more
                                    • Nope. Not correct.SES, Mon Mar 4 12:11pm
                                      Sia: "Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically ." The argument isn't that the order of impeachment-indictment... more
                                      • Ooooh, Don't Play Fast And Loose...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:32pm
                                        ...there with the words. We already went over that it was only ONE reference that was specific about the order. Amadeus
                                        • It's in both #65 and #69. Your bad.SES, Mon Mar 4 3:42pm
                                          The Federalist Papers : No. 65 - "After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution ... more
                                          • "Will Still Be" vs "Will Then Be"Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 4:01pm
                                            Words have meaning. "Will still be" means that he already was "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law" but the state of being liable to such continued after impeachment... more
                                      • She's not wrong, some do believe that.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 12:33pm
                                        And again, you're making claims about you you concede IS NOT in the Constitution. The full circle is you sitting on your thumb, spinning around.
                                  • ...slam dunk to me is that in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was trying to assure Delegates that a President would not be immune to punishment and removal from office, as the British King... more
                                    • You Keep Repeating The Same Arguments...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:34pm
                                      ...even after they've been countered. I don't see a reason to keep repeating the counterarguments. You can go back and reread them if you've forgotten them. Suffice it to say that you are no more... more
                                      • ...Hamilton DIDN'T Use "The President COULD BE indicted" to assure New York's Delegates that a President could be held to account for wrongdoing?
                                        • Why Couldn't A President Be Indicted?Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:58pm
                                          Why don't meteorologists tell us when it isn't going to rain orange juice? Amadeus
                                          • ...what COULDN'T happen, as it is to expect a Weatherman to say "It isn't going to rain Orange Juice". It's as stupid to expect the Constitution, which contains VERY DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS on how a... more
                                            • You're So Close...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 10:16pm
                                              Is the President a citizen? Yes. The President must be a citizen according to the Constitution. Are all citizens bound by the law? Yes, all citizens are bound by the law. Is the President, then,... more
                                              • ...probably tell you to "P*ss off!" Since she thinks that "experts" "vehemently" and "enormously" disagree, you are not allowed to claim that you are correct... ...according to the Admin.
                                                • Actually no she's not disagreeing with opinions.HeavyHemi, Tue Mar 5 12:31pm
                                                  Here again we can read the posts and see that you are in fast being dishonest about the content of them. You have in fact claimed quotes that were not made to make your arguments. That is dishonest... more
                                            • Nope, this is complete nonsensiscal babbling.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 5:35pm
                                              I mean if you understood whether the Constitution is prescriptive or proscriptive. Or perhaps if you quit conflating the concepts in your *arguments' in mid stride... You're really quite inept.
                                    • Then you get even more silly by changing it to 'discussing facts' while using the word 'intent'. Do you have a dictionary?
                        • Ad hominem attacks? Do you have a dictionary?HeavyHemi, Sun Mar 3 12:41pm
                          Good lawd....when you 'went to college', did you have to take remedial English classes?
            • The Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the Constitution AS IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN! They aren't what Hamilton thought SHOULD be in the Constitution. Sia: "That does NOT mean that was... more
              • It was to get it signed, but the BILL of RIGHTS was added,changing it !!! Sia☺giah, Sat Mar 2 11:16am
                Yes, it was already written, but the main purpose of The Federalist Papers was to explain the newly proposed constitution (we had a first constitution called The Articles of Confederation) to the... more
                • ...Papers were all about. Apology accepted.
                  • I knew what they were all along.Sia☺giah, Sat Mar 2 12:28pm
                    My point is that anonymous letters to a NEWSPAPER to sell ratification to one particular state is HARDLY proof positive of the precise meaning of the constitution. Legal SCHOLARS disagree as to what... more
                    • ...and what the writers of the Constitution SAID was in the Constitution. YOUR argument is "It isn't in the Constitution, which means it COULD BE in the Constitution, and because I WANT it to be in... more
                      • your description is nothing more than a punctured balloon. So, I suggest that you piss off, Benjy.
                      • FALSE !!Sia☺giah, Sat Mar 2 1:47pm
                        My argument is that the anonymous letters that Hamilton authored were HIS ATTEMPTS to sell the constitution to the citizens of NY. Letters to the editor are NOT legal documents, (nor do they carry... more
                      • That is not her argument, that is a lie.HeavyHemi, Sat Mar 2 1:20pm
                        I did not call you a liar. I pointed out that in fact, your claim that "It isn't in the Constitution, which means it COULD BE in the Constitution, and because I WANT it to be in the Constitution, it... more
            • were arguments for ratification, not definitive explanations of anything. If I'm not mistaken, Hamilton and Madison had and wrote contradictory arguments in some instances. So much for... more
          • ...the Constitution does not, should not, and was never intended to, state all of the things that could NOT happen. That's absurd. The Constitution states what CAN happen -- impeachment. If it... more
            • Very Good Points...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 2:28pm
              ...concerning the input of a Founder on the Constitution. But it doesn't really respond to some of the points still outstanding. Simply because Hamilton pointed out that the President was not a King... more
              • ...this is the same situation that has been experienced a thousand times since the Constitution was written. Trying to determine what was intended. If all you do is look at the words, without... more
                • I Think You Are Too Smart By Half...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 3:51pm
                  It would not be enough to assuage the people that the President was, of course, just another citizen and subject to the same laws as the rest of the people. This was a new thing, this experiment in... more
    • ...the specifics of whether or not a POTUS can be indicted IN OFFICE because IT IS NOT CLEAR. So, WHY should Sia listen to what YOU think about it? Hint: She claims she shouldn't, but apparently she... more
      • You're Making A Fool Of Yourself...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 2:01pm
        You should note that for the most part, when people tell you that experts are divided on an issue, they are taking exception to you - a nonexpert - claiming that your position is obviously correct... more
        • Was there ever an easier task?SJW, Mon Mar 4 5:11pm
          All that's missing from SES's posts are the "Merrie Melodies"
        • deleted subject lineBANNED POSTER, Sat Mar 2 4:54pm
          Mondo should not be posting here. **original post removed** MODERATOR
          • It's fascinatinggreenman, Sat Mar 2 5:07pm
            ...that you rail at people you don't like posting on your board and ban their posts, but come over here and post even though you're banned. Would you call that consistent or ethical behavior, Mondo?
            • He Has A ProblemAmadeus, Sat Mar 2 5:18pm
              If he was satisfied with his own board, he wouldn't bother other boards like this. He does demonstrate an astounding lack of ethics. He has constantly and continuously violated the Terms of Service... more
        • is disturbing.
    • But would they have put in a system where a POTUS theoretically COULD be indicted for murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison, yet STILL be POTUS?
      • Without Impeachment...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 9:36am
        ...there is nothing in the law that would explicitly remove the President from office. The country would have faced an untenable position. So, they wrote in the process to remove the President from... more
        • I agree... Sprout, Fri Mar 1 10:33am
          Which is why, to me, it makes sense that the sequence of events would be impeachment, indictment, trial, conviction, sentencing... Kind of how Hamilton described it.
          • Perhaps In The Best Case Scenario...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 11:45am
            ...that would make the most sense. You know, when the political party of the President wasn't being complicit in protecting the President from the consequences of his actions. However, in such a... more
            • Hamilton discussed all of the possible arrangements for impeachment, who would impeach, who would conduct the trial, who would preside. They had considered all of the implications of Party politics.... more
              • remotely. They completely opposed the kind of powerful 2 party system that we have today. So, NO, they had NO CLUE what the world of today would bring to such situations or that a political party... more
              • Obviously NotAmadeus, Fri Mar 1 3:45pm
                You cannot seriously say that Hamilton thought that it would be best for a president guilty of various offenses to be protected by his party from impeachment - and therefore shielded from any... more
                • Yes, I'm seriously saying that Hamilton and the Convention considered the influence of Parties on the impeachment process, among other things, before deciding that the Senate was "the most fit... more
    • Good points. Agreed on McConnell as a "trail blazer" of — Sia☺giah, Thu Feb 28 9:58pm
      • I Could See Him...Amadeus, Fri Mar 1 9:38am
        ...telling the Senate that they are going to not vote to impeach until the President has exhausted his appeals. *rolls eyes* Amadeus
Click here to receive daily updates