Sia☺giah
and NOW we are full circle back to the beginning...
Mon Mar 4, 2019 11:59am
71.168.78.21

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, all that matters is a rogue POTUS is REMOVED from office and faces the consequences of his choices and actions.

THIS stuff can go on day and night, forever and ever... That is, until such time as the SCOTUS rules on it. THEN it will be a matter of settled law. However, whichever way it goes, scholars will STILL argue over whether the decision made was according to the FF's intentions or simply according to the beliefs of the individual SCOTUS members making the decision.

  • Ironically...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:46am
    ...you 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
    • and NOW we are full circle back to the beginning... — Sia☺giah, Mon Mar 4 11:59am
      • 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?
Click here to receive daily updates