Question for the constitutional scholars...

[pink]

Do all 100 senators have to sit as jurors on the impeachment trial? eg maybe some of them may be sick.

Secondly, if they dont all have to sit as jurors for the trial, should the ones who think that the trial is unconstitutional, can they recuse themselves?

Just asking!

[former9thward]

1. No to both your questions

Attendance is mandatory.

[dpibel]

3. Then how do you explain

the words "of the members present" in this:

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


If, as you state with such certitude, attendance is mandatory, why would that last sentence not end with the word "Members." If they have to be there (i.e., attendance is mandatory), then "present" is surplusage.

Is it possible that you are speaking with certitude but without authority?

[tritsofme]

5. Senate rules make attendance mandatory.

The Sergeant at Arms can drag a reluctant senator feet first into the chamber.

The Constitution, however sets the threshold for conviction at 2/3 of those present.

[StarfishSaver]

6. I see nothing in the Senate rules that requires Senators to be present at an impeachment

or that authorizes the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest a Senator and force them to attend the trial.

Do you have a citation to the specific rule that says this?

[StarfishSaver]

10. Asking again

Where did you read in the Senate rules that attendance at impeachment trials is mandatory?

[tritsofme]

11. I heard it on CNN during the first trial.

Don’t have a link.

[StarfishSaver]

13. I've read through the rules pretty thoroughly and found no such rule

If anyone said it on CNN, they were likely wrong.

[dpibel]

7. Wait. No to both?

The OP's first question is, "Do all 100 senators have to sit as jurors on the impeachment trial?"

You have answered that question "no."

In which case, what sense should we make of your assertion that attendance is mandatory?

Have you quite entirely thought this through?

[former9thward]

8. I misread the first question.

So it should be yes. Thank you.

[dpibel]

9. Cool. What about that other issue?

You know. The one where you make a categorical statement and people say, "What's your basis for that?" and then crickets happen.

[former9thward]

12. I know a lot of people like to play gottcha games on this site

rather than engage in intelligent discussion. I have a life outside of posting and do not wait breathlessly for a reply to something I post, unlike many. I also do not waste my time doing homework for those who have no interest in getting at the facts -- they just want to score cheap points. No one is forced to read anything I post. I withdraw my thank you...

[StarfishSaver]

14. Asking you the basis for something you wrote on this board isn't playing "gotcha?"

As for "doing homework," it's on YOU to do YOUR homework before you post something if you want it to have any credibility.

[TomSlick]

2. I know of nothing that requires a Senator to be present for the trial.

Such a requirement would be unenforceable in any event. Surely, there would be no attempt to punish a Senator who was ill and did not appear.

Moreover, the Constitution provides that conviction requires the "concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present." That suggests that some Senators may not be present for the vote.

All that being said, it seems unlikely to me that any GQP Senators would fail to appear (unless seriously ill) and possibly decrease the number needed for conviction.

[StarfishSaver]

4. No. Senators are not required to be present.