Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FreepFryer

(7,086 posts)
154. Here's another interpretation from US Law Justia supporting my argument. Can I see one for yours?
Tue May 21, 2019, 05:26 PM
May 2019

The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote.

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856

853 See discussion supra of the differences between English and American impeachment.

854 3 Deschler’sprecedents Of The United States House Of Representatives ch. 14, § 13.9.

855 See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional And Historical Analysis 77–79 (2d ed. 2000).

856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Amazing how people have different opinions. marylandblue May 2019 #1
Yep, I'm tired of my way or the highway. redstatebluegirl May 2019 #3
Exactly. Me too. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #5
I also haven't seen all of these posts "trying to plant the notion that impeachment is hopeless, StarfishSaver May 2019 #89
Me either. Nuggets May 2019 #93
And i agree 100% with those points you made, except if you haven't seen "its hopeless" posts on DU, FreepFryer May 2019 #98
With drawing comment. I'm away Hortensis May 2019 #103
I continue to hold u in very high esteem, but there are bunches on this post alone... FreepFryer May 2019 #141
What? Laura PourMeADrink May 2019 #175
noted nt Grasswire2 May 2019 #2
Yeah what's up with that? shanny May 2019 #4
Actually, there are more posts that call for immediate impeachment. MineralMan May 2019 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst May 2019 #8
Well, the impeachment question is a serious one. MineralMan May 2019 #21
+1000 (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #26
BINGO. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #36
I also don't think people understand disqualification (a vote separate and apart from removal) nt FreepFryer May 2019 #39
+1,001. n/t RichardRay May 2019 #100
This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst May 2019 #7
Are you saying there's not enough evidence to impeach Trump? coti May 2019 #9
Are you thinking a conviction in the Senate is possible? If so I have a bridge... Demsrule86 May 2019 #17
+1000. (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #20
Thanks Demsrule86 May 2019 #33
I think conviction is unlikely but not impossible. But the point is to be clear about the values coti May 2019 #28
Hitting Trump makes you feel like you are 'doing something' but all that will happen is the Demsrule86 May 2019 #32
No, you're defining him and laying out the evidence for the whole country, in the spectacle and coti May 2019 #35
Oh, so televised hearings that are not part of impeachment procedings don't have enough ehrnst May 2019 #70
Those that don't, Ike Trump are dug in and so is the other side. This is not Demsrule86 May 2019 #167
You don't think that Dems are de-legitimizing him now? ehrnst May 2019 #40
No, apparently he's legitimate enough that people like you won't even support impeaching him coti May 2019 #43
false dilemma for the win... ehrnst May 2019 #60
Great response!!!! Not holding him accountable IS DEFINITELY legitimizing him and Laura PourMeADrink May 2019 #179
WTF Skittles May 2019 #86
We Need to win in 20. If Trump wins again, it will be way worse. Demsrule86 May 2019 #163
and what if we don't impeach and he "wins" anyway? Skittles May 2019 #164
It won't matter. He will still Demsrule86 May 2019 #170
if only for history's sake we need to start impeachment proceedings Skittles May 2019 #171
I know nothing about impeachment so my question is blueinredohio May 2019 #87
If 2/3rds of the Senate doesn't vote to remove, he stays in office, without any penalty... BUT FreepFryer May 2019 #142
Thanks FreepFryer that helped explain a lot. blueinredohio May 2019 #145
He's pushing, imho, because he's 1. egomaniacal, 2. used to goading prosecutors and violating law, & FreepFryer May 2019 #146
Unless he is removed from office, he keeps all his powers. Demsrule86 May 2019 #162
Why are you asking me? I'm not in the House, nor am I a lawyer. ehrnst May 2019 #18
Sure there is. The House can impeach for just about anything. MineralMan May 2019 #30
The Clinton removal vote in the Senate wasn't really all that close. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #83
That's right. MineralMan May 2019 #91
Trump being named a co-conspirator in a felony watoos May 2019 #10
What is the point of impeachment without conviction? In fact the Senate will exonnerate him. Demsrule86 May 2019 #14
What about disqualification? Have you ever researched that? FreepFryer May 2019 #59
What about it? Disqualification is your point. You need to make it and explain it. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #76
No, that's not my OP's point. THe point is that simplistic (mis)understandings and horserace denials FreepFryer May 2019 #112
Thank you, but not in your OP or the post I replied. Interesting. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #116
You're impugning my motives for articulating my argument? It surprises me that you would attack me FreepFryer May 2019 #119
Sorry, no impugning, no attack. I was explaining why I simply did not see your 'other' post. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #127
It's cool - I'm obv getting some friction for the post, and I have a lot of respect for you... FreepFryer May 2019 #130
The Senate run by McConnell is not going to disqualify Trump. Demsrule86 May 2019 #165
So you think Trump can be 'disqualified like a horse? Nothing in the constitution Demsrule86 May 2019 #161
Then he'll gloat and claim victory redstateblues May 2019 #110
He's doing that *right now* durablend May 2019 #158
But after the Senate exonerated him , it will be worse. Demsrule86 May 2019 #166
That is what I think. Demsrule86 May 2019 #160
Anyone thinking that impeachment is the only way to make a case against him ehrnst May 2019 #29
+1. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #77
+1! (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #147
That's absolutely not what I'm saying. FreepFryer May 2019 #19
Thank you for the clarification. I misread the OP. ehrnst May 2019 #23
No worries, I really appreciate the acknowledgment - my post was rather strident. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #34
Clarification? RichardRay May 2019 #106
It's not a lesser count - it's a separate vote, as described in the Senate overview document. FreepFryer May 2019 #108
You are misunderstanding this. The disqualifiction vote only occurs after conviction. bornskeptic May 2019 #181
Personally, I don't want impeachment unless it goes all the way... cynatnite May 2019 #11
Not necessarily true - a disqualification vote, if held in the Senate, requires only simple majority FreepFryer May 2019 #31
The mechanism is weak without both chambers willing to impeach... cynatnite May 2019 #42
If a disqualifying vote passed in the Senate, Trump couldn't run in 2020, and we wouldn't get Pence. FreepFryer May 2019 #51
In a repub senate??? cynatnite May 2019 #52
How is a simple majority in the Senate impossible? A 2/3rds majority perhaps, but a simple majority? FreepFryer May 2019 #53
I'm declaring it impossible because of who is in charge and has majority already. n/t cynatnite May 2019 #54
Read about the Nixon hearings and how many Republicans seemed in lockstep in June 1972, Feb 1974... FreepFryer May 2019 #56
Nixon had tapes.... cynatnite May 2019 #58
And when did we learn about those tapes? July, 1973. AFTER HEARINGS HAD BEGUN. FreepFryer May 2019 #61
Hey, I'm not looking to change minds here... cynatnite May 2019 #67
Someone on the side of reality constructs arguments based on facts, not opinion. FreepFryer May 2019 #71
Fact: Repubs have the senate and the WH. Period. n/t cynatnite May 2019 #82
Mkay! EXCLAMATION POINT n/t FreepFryer May 2019 #84
A simple majority? How does that magically appear? redstateblues May 2019 #192
Republicans held both houses in 1998 and 1999 NewJeffCT May 2019 #62
They stole the presidency in 2000 Trumpocalypse May 2019 #156
Al Gore NewJeffCT May 2019 #157
The truth is in the middle. maxsolomon May 2019 #12
Exactly. Me too. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #22
Oh you can impeach...no issue. But then the Senate declares him innocent and he goes on his Demsrule86 May 2019 #13
Impeach him again. maxsolomon May 2019 #15
+1 uponit7771 May 2019 #148
If we win this election, give thanks...it is going to be very tough. Demsrule86 May 2019 #169
Oh, I will. maxsolomon May 2019 #182
I know. Demsrule86 May 2019 #191
don't impeach and he declares himself exonerated by the Mueller investigation...and blames democrats spanone May 2019 #25
Nixon was at 60% when impeachment began, 21 months after Watergate. He resigned when the tide turned FreepFryer May 2019 #27
Seriously? This is not 1973. There will be no turning of tides. Both sides are dug in. Demsrule86 May 2019 #168
The tide will not turn. Demsrule86 May 2019 #190
There is no proof of this Rambling Man May 2019 #189
Bullying people because they don't think the same as you sucks wasupaloopa May 2019 #16
Doesn't it? It's getting really beyond tiresome being attacked for supporting the rule of law. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #24
Well, see, the law says that the House decides whether or not to impeach. MineralMan May 2019 #38
The House of Representatives IS us, just once removed by election. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #41
That is correct. And we vote again next year on the entire MineralMan May 2019 #44
True enough! Again, the Nixon process tells us much re the tectonic shifts impeachment can enable... FreepFryer May 2019 #49
Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before impeachment proceedings started. MineralMan May 2019 #65
I'm well aware. I'm an historian. FreepFryer May 2019 #66
As we live in a republic, they are not us. Kaleva May 2019 #45
No but they are We The People. (nt) FreepFryer May 2019 #50
The Founding Fathers had concerns about the tyranny of the majority. Kaleva May 2019 #68
Is it that or "the tyranny of the demos qua plebs" to which you object? FreepFryer May 2019 #69
I don't object to anything. Kaleva May 2019 #73
NO- they have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect and defend our constitution and democracy nt coti May 2019 #48
You're saying that Democratic leaders are NOT protecting and defending our constitution and ehrnst May 2019 #72
That's what they are doing rather than Nuggets May 2019 #97
No, this is appeasement. nt coti May 2019 #102
Appeasement does not mean what you think it does. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #123
No, your definition is far too narrow. It's making any explicit or implied deal beneficial to an coti May 2019 #172
No. The Ds (realists) have no expectation tRump would ever stop attacking. So they aren't appeasing. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #187
No, it's not. (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #173
Yes it is. nt coti May 2019 #174
Nope, it's not. ehrnst May 2019 #176
I'm quite certain it is. coti May 2019 #177
Actually no, it's not. ehrnst May 2019 #178
If there were any "logical" (I assume you mean "well-reasoned") arguments or "data" coti May 2019 #180
You present only your opinion as though it is data. ehrnst May 2019 #185
They are carrying out that responsibility. But you seem to look for reasons to ehrnst May 2019 #186
One thing that has given me hope.... is the uptick in impeachment talk over the last couple dewsgirl May 2019 #37
Same here. The wheel is turning, and we don't want it flying off the wagon as we start moving. n/t FreepFryer May 2019 #46
Exactly. dewsgirl May 2019 #47
Yes. There has to be lots of talk first before the public scares the Republicon Senators. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #81
I can't keep up with everything like before..to much happening. dewsgirl May 2019 #94
I Haven't Seen Hopeless Me. May 2019 #55
Here's a fresh example of 'hopeless' FreepFryer May 2019 #57
There's a difference between "it's hopeless" TwilightZone May 2019 #132
Assuming removal is the only possible binary outcome (and despairing its failure) is the error. FreepFryer May 2019 #133
It is the only binary outcome. TwilightZone May 2019 #134
You clearly didn't read post 128, nor do u understand impeachment as well as u think u do (nt) FreepFryer May 2019 #135
The point is MFM008 May 2019 #184
I personally think we are working up to impeachment but until the Thugs appleannie1943 May 2019 #63
Is it merely cowardly, fear-based defeatism... Fiendish Thingy May 2019 #64
Impeachment is not removal Stinky The Clown May 2019 #74
indeed, it is not - if you notice above I make the exact same point - uncriminally. FreepFryer May 2019 #78
I don't think he misread it at, the OP is "anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" ... marble falls May 2019 #96
That's an inattentive mischaracterization of the OP, perhaps brought on by fatigue. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #99
And I think the OP was meant to provke a fight. I pay very close attention to this sort of post ... marble falls May 2019 #101
I support SpkrPelosi 100%. She made NONE of those arguments. Again, u r being inattentive to my post FreepFryer May 2019 #104
Speaker Pelosi has not been looking to impeachment as a solution to the Trump problem ... marble falls May 2019 #105
What does that have to do with my OP? Your argument is not contradictory to it FreepFryer May 2019 #107
Your proposition is: 'anyone against impeaching the Orange Shitgibbon in in the sway ... marble falls May 2019 #111
No it's exactly NOT what i've said - you 100% misunderstand my OP and are resistant to dialogue. FreepFryer May 2019 #115
I am precluding anymore of your dancing around the issue. You want an immediate impeachment ... marble falls May 2019 #118
I do NOT want immediate impeachment, as described elsewhere in this OP. You're COMPLETELY WRONG(n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #121
Keep dancing. marble falls May 2019 #122
LOL. Read my comments here and you might see you are arguing against an inverse of my argument. FreepFryer May 2019 #125
... and a five, six, seven, eight ..... marble falls May 2019 #131
"Amazing how these waves of similar-sounding crap just seem to lap at our shores." brooklynite May 2019 #124
Good luck with that! marble falls May 2019 #126
Your amazed that some DU members disagree with you? GulfCoast66 May 2019 #75
So many posts calling a mere difference of opinion and analysis "crap" as well. LanternWaste May 2019 #79
Exactly right - and a terrible lack of facts and context. History and law versus horseraces. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #80
I think we are headed in the right direction... BlueJac May 2019 #85
Yes, agreed - but since power is based on the perception of power, it's a careful balance between... FreepFryer May 2019 #88
Do you know that they are not being as tough as possible? (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #90
+1. I agreed that we are moving in the right direction, I reject that Democrats are not being tough. FreepFryer May 2019 #95
I don't think it's so much ill advised. . . . BigDemVoter May 2019 #92
Agreed! Vinnie From Indy May 2019 #109
Or perhaps people have opinions which differ from yours jberryhill May 2019 #113
It certainly is - this is not a simple matter of opinion, it's about misunderstanding impeachment FreepFryer May 2019 #114
Are you saying that I part of some external trolling effort? brooklynite May 2019 #117
It's not as if those folks make a difference. fescuerescue May 2019 #120
MIGHT WANNA READ AND UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT BEFORE INVERTING OR TWISTING IT FreepFryer May 2019 #128
Your OP doesn't make an argument. TwilightZone May 2019 #137
It has everything to do with my OP, but I appreciate the feedback! FreepFryer May 2019 #138
Then you should have made those points in the OP. TwilightZone May 2019 #139
Indeed - thanks again for the feedback, it's not just about me - we should all use Windex! FreepFryer May 2019 #140
I actually go back and forth. Most of the time I think it absolutely must happen, Dream Girl May 2019 #129
That's probably the most well-adapted psychological posture for surviving this craziness :) FreepFryer May 2019 #144
Amazing indeed malaise May 2019 #136
I'm particularly fascinated by the people who take my OP personally... very revealing indeed. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #143
Can anybody name the 20 Republican Senators Locutusofborg May 2019 #149
Me neither. We'd only need 4 for disqualification, however. (n/t) FreepFryer May 2019 #150
I've posted the info about disqualification in the Senate from comms 19, 31, 128, etc. to a new post FreepFryer May 2019 #151
There would have to have been a guilty verdict first Locutusofborg May 2019 #152
Patently incorrect. Cite your Const. interpretation. I cited the Senate's own overview, which reads: FreepFryer May 2019 #153
Here's another interpretation from US Law Justia supporting my argument. Can I see one for yours? FreepFryer May 2019 #154
Please see this post, wherein FreepFryer eats fried crow. :) thanks all, this was very educational! FreepFryer May 2019 #155
What I'm hearing is that the waiting Ilsa May 2019 #159
How are you going to get 20 GOP Senators to vote to remove? Gothmog May 2019 #183
I notice the opposite.. stillcool May 2019 #188
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So many posts trying to p...»Reply #154