-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does the Senate have to hold a trial?
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
Particular
Well-Known Member
The House must do the investigation and vote to go to trial. Only when/if the house votes for a trial will the Senate be required to try the case against the President and declare a verdict.
Mitch McConnell is correct. The Senate is bound by law to deliberate and pronounce a verdict.
This happened with President Clinton. The house found that he had lied under oath. The Senate took the information and tried it. They found President Clinton not guilty and thus he was not removed from office or censored.
Please post the quote from the Constitution that states the Senate is required to hold a trial when presented with articles of impeachment by the House.
Particular
Well-Known Member
Please look at the two times in history where a sitting President was impeached and what the Senate did. Case law also sets a precidence for what is done.
However, you are free to quote the Constitution where it says the Senate does not need to try an impeachment.
...read a piece, somewhere today, that premised a trial is not mandated by the Constitution. Mitch will do whatever he thinks is necessary to hold on to the Senate, and that probably means there will be a trial.
Particular
Well-Known Member
You are quibbling. I am saying that case law applies to what is done. We have precedence.
How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.
Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.
Impeachment Trials
The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."
For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).
However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one -- "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer -- the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority "on all fours" for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.
Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw
BUT:
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he is constitutionally bound to take up an impeachment trial in the Senate if the House passes articles to remove President Donald Trump. “How long you are on it is a different matter,” he stated...."
Mitch McConnell: Senate May Have 'No Choice' but to Hold Impeachment Trial
BUT:
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he is constitutionally bound to take up an impeachment trial in the Senate if the House passes articles to remove President Donald Trump. “How long you are on it is a different matter,” he stated...."
Mitch McConnell: Senate May Have 'No Choice' but to Hold Impeachment Trial
Yeah. I caught that right away. Mitch knows they make their own rules. And whatever "trial" they have won't resemble what most people consider a "trial". He'll give a nod to the Constitution, but the fact is the Senate can almost completely ignore the wishes of the House, have a vote and it's over.
But they won't.
Mitch is politically savvy enough to know there would be humongous backlash from Dems and MSM which could jepordize reelection of some Senators in 2020. Thus, a 'trial' will be had.
I see, so you know all the Senate rules better than the Senate Majority leader?
The Constitution creates a Senate, the Senate then decides it's own internal rules.
Pelosi has been cautious on the impeachment thingie cuz she knows she doesn't have enough Senate votes to remove Trump, & the GOP backlash would be huge.
Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of having a fling with Monica, oral or otherwise, and of lying about it-as well as lying about the Paula Jones thingie. Yet, the GOP fell far-short of having 67 Senators voting 'guilty'. There's hafta be proof that trump committed a serious crime before 67 Senators would find him guilty of something bad enough to remove him from office. Right now, there's no such evidence having been revealed.
Pelosi's trying to walk a political tightrope, trying to keep some of her fellow reps happy while not doing something that'd harm her party overall, such as a failed impeachment. She needs good, solid evidence that can't be denied for her to vigorously push for impeachment. And even that can fail, as it did with Clinton.
Right now, it's "he said, she said", which won't cut it in the senate. And again, we see how even hard evidence can fail, as it did against Clinton. Right now, I see only 45 Senators at the most who'd vote "Guilty". Several Dems would vote "Not guilty", such as WV's Joe Manchin, whose state is heavily pro-Trump. That's why the GOP is quietly hoping for impeachment; it'd greatly boost their chances in the next election, as it'd fail.
Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of having a fling with Monica, oral or otherwise, and of lying about it-as well as lying about the Paula Jones thingie. Yet, the GOP fell far-short of having 67 Senators voting 'guilty'. There's hafta be proof that trump committed a serious crime before 67 Senators would find him guilty of something bad enough to remove him from office. Right now, there's no such evidence having been revealed.
Pelosi's trying to walk a political tightrope, trying to keep some of her fellow reps happy while not doing something that'd harm her party overall, such as a failed impeachment. She needs good, solid evidence that can't be denied for her to vigorously push for impeachment. And even that can fail, as it did with Clinton.
Right now, it's "he said, she said", which won't cut it in the senate. And again, we see how even hard evidence can fail, as it did against Clinton. Right now, I see only 45 Senators at the most who'd vote "Guilty". Several Dems would vote "Not guilty", such as WV's Joe Manchin, whose state is heavily pro-Trump. That's why the GOP is quietly hoping for impeachment; it'd greatly boost their chances in the next election, as it'd fail.
I agree with those who say that Pelosi will stall for time and try to stop the impeachment form happening. The problem is that Biden is clearly guilty and Obama probably knew about what he did and if Obama didn't know, then he was not much of President although he was not much of a President either way. As I posted on another thread, Diamond & Silk said that if Trump is impeached, then Trump can subpoena anyone including Obama himself to testify at the trial. It would be neat to see Obama cross-examined in the Senate by Ted Cruz.
Show me the quote from the Constitution that says the Senate MUST hold a trial when presented with articles of impeachment by the House.
Senate rules mean nothing and can be changed at any time by a majority vote.
And with a majority vote, they can change the rules. If the senate was bound only by it's own rules, they would rewrite them every time the majority changes.
The Constitution rules.
Mitch says he must based purely on senate rules
Exactly. But not Constitutionally.
But the fact is Republicans can change the rules and blow it off if they so desire. They won't. But they could.
It seems to be one of those things that just seem unsaid but obvious in The Constitution. If there was no obligation to try it, the majority leader would hold absolute power.
I think that Pelosi will let the House slowly forget about it, but if they won't, then I want the Senate to subpoena Biden and Obama to explain how Biden's dissolute son Hunter got all that money from the Ukraine and how he got to manage a billion and a half for the Chicoms. Pelosi is pure evil, the Margaret Sanger award winner for eugenics. I think that the Senate could vote to table the motion from the House and that would kill it.