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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Just thinking! Is it possible that the RETHUGS are planning
For tRUMP to hand the election to Pence, at the last minute? ( with the guarantee of complete pardon for the asshole and family?) I wouldn't put ANYTHING pass these fuckers!! 
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
an experimental rocket to Mars. My guess is that he'll believe he doesn't need a spacesuit. 
2.
Once impeached, AnusMouth is disqualified from holding Federal office (Art. I, Sec. 3)
How is Alcee Hastings a House member? He was impeached AND convicted and removed by the US Senate as a Judge before.
From what I have found, the future barring of federal office holding needs a further vote, even though the Constitutional wording sure doesn't look like it does.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec3.html
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.
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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf
Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate
punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is
limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future
offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Although removal from office would
appear to flow automatically from conviction on an article of impeachment, a separate vote is
necessary should the Senate deem it appropriate to disqualify the individual convicted from
holding future federal offices of public trust. Approval of such a measure requires only the
support of a simple majority.
Key Takeaways of This Report
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the
President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination
that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.
A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.
If the Senate, by vote of a two-thirds majority, convicts the official on any article
of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion,
disqualification from holding future office.
THAT
seems at loggerheads with the Constitution itself:
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:
in 2 ways
1
I see NOTHING that separates removal and then barring as requiring two separate votes (and certainly nothing saying only a simple majority is needed for barring)
and
2
I totally see your point about the exact Constitutional language not MANDATING even removal
That report seems to really play fast and loose with the entire thing
you now have me very worried that even a conviction might not remove the fucker
our founding fathers REALLY fucked us in so many ways IMHO
the Senate itself, with its mandate 2 seats per state, regardless of size, was/is a long-wave timebomb for instance (as population drift can render a small percentage of the population holding the whip hand over the vast majority, which IS happening right before our eyes)
and the shitty fucking vague language in the 2nd Amendment is another
I am so glad I hold multiple citizenships and the means to live where I choose to
I do not like this overall direction we are headed toward AT ALL
A Rump re-election has the distinct possibility of leading to the breakup of the union within the next two decades IF he then stacks the SCOTUS to 7-2 or even 8-1 hardcore RW (8-1 if Sotomayor's chronic and worsening diabetes does her in). The Red States will push cases up to it that will roll back most all of post-Brown v Board hard won civil rights (and may take out Brown v Board itself.)
The most Blue of the Blue states will never submit to theocratical tyranny for a federal government. They will, by the 2030's be pushing to break away IF the feds try to enforce the crazy new anti-human laws and rulings that would flow out.
There is no way the RW will settle for a states rights-only devolution for issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights. They will try and outlaw thsoe things nationally.
The Senate, by 2030 to 2035 will have 70% of the seats controlled by only 30% of the population, and that 30% is far whiter, older, more fundie, poorer, more racist, less educated, and more reactionary RW than the 70%.
The only way to temporary stave that off is to add PR and DC as states and perhaps split California into 2 states, thus giving us 6 new Democratic Senators. GOOD LUCK getting that to happen.
The same dynamics are fucking us in the Electoral College (and also voting power in the House itself) when it comes to electing the POTUS and even passing legislation. Because the House number of Representatives has not been really changed since 1913, there are just not enough EV's to fairly distribute in today's vastly increased population, so a person in Wyoming's POTUS vote is soon going to be 4 times as powerful as a California voter's. The US Constitution gives the tiniest states far too much power overall. The best way to sort the EC and the House itself is to vastly increase the number of Reps, say to 1201 (has to be an odd number, so no tie votes) and then distribute the seats (and thus the EV's) far more equitably.
All that takes is an Act of Congress. We need to do that as SOON as we grab both chambers and the POTUS. We may not get another shot again for years, if ever.
Adding the new States will be much harder I fear.
Fuck Trump, fuck ALL Republicans
rant off
Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate
punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is
limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future
offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Although removal from office would
appear to flow automatically from conviction on an article of impeachment, a separate vote is
necessary should the Senate deem it appropriate to disqualify the individual convicted from
holding future federal offices of public trust. Approval of such a measure requires only the
support of a simple majority.
Key Takeaways of This Report
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the
President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination
that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.
A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.
If the Senate, by vote of a two-thirds majority, convicts the official on any article
of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion,
disqualification from holding future office.
THAT
seems at loggerheads with the Constitution itself:
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:
in 2 ways
1
I see NOTHING that separates removal and then barring as requiring two separate votes (and certainly nothing saying only a simple majority is needed for barring)
and
2
I totally see your point about the exact Constitutional language not MANDATING even removal
That report seems to really play fast and loose with the entire thing
you now have me very worried that even a conviction might not remove the fucker
our founding fathers REALLY fucked us in so many ways IMHO
the Senate itself, with its mandate 2 seats per state, regardless of size, was/is a long-wave timebomb for instance (as population drift can render a small percentage of the population holding the whip hand over the vast majority, which IS happening right before our eyes)
and the shitty fucking vague language in the 2nd Amendment is another
I am so glad I hold multiple citizenships and the means to live where I choose to
I do not like this overall direction we are headed toward AT ALL
A Rump re-election has the distinct possibility of leading to the breakup of the union within the next two decades IF he then stacks the SCOTUS to 7-2 or even 8-1 hardcore RW (8-1 if Sotomayor's chronic and worsening diabetes does her in). The Red States will push cases up to it that will roll back most all of post-Brown v Board hard won civil rights (and may take out Brown v Board itself.)
The most Blue of the Blue states will never submit to theocratical tyranny for a federal government. They will, by the 2030's be pushing to break away IF the feds try to enforce the crazy new anti-human laws and rulings that would flow out.
There is no way the RW will settle for a states rights-only devolution for issues like abortion and LGBTQ rights. They will try and outlaw thsoe things nationally.
The Senate, by 2030 to 2035 will have 70% of the seats controlled by only 30% of the population, and that 30% is far whiter, older, more fundie, poorer, more racist, less educated, and more reactionary RW than the 70%.
The only way to temporary stave that off is to add PR and DC as states and perhaps split California into 2 states, thus giving us 6 new Democratic Senators. GOOD LUCK getting that to happen.
The same dynamics are fucking us in the Electoral College (and also voting power in the House itself) when it comes to electing the POTUS and even passing legislation. Because the House number of Representatives has not been really changed since 1913, there are just not enough EV's to fairly distribute in today's vastly increased population, so a person in Wyoming's POTUS vote is soon going to be 4 times as powerful as a California voter's. The US Constitution gives the tiniest states far too much power overall. The best way to sort the EC and the House itself is to vastly increase the number of Reps, say to 1201 (has to be an odd number, so no tie votes) and then distribute the seats (and thus the EV's) far more equitably.
All that takes is an Act of Congress. We need to do that as SOON as we grab both chambers and the POTUS. We may not get another shot again for years, if ever.
Adding the new States will be much harder I fear.
Fuck Trump, fuck ALL Republicans
rant off
