Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

Coming soon to my neighborhood

Digger

Constitutional Patriot
Staff member
impeach biden flag.jpg
 

Guvner

Administrator
Staff member
I need you to order me a flag too... or one that says "Beijing Biden"...
 

Old Longhair

Crazy Ol' Foole
Staff member
If Trump is impeached for a 2nd time ,, I heard that makes him ineligible to run for public office again . Is this true ??? Piglosi even said that was her intent,, if I'm correct.
If he is convicted and removed from office through impeachment it is true.
Problem is, that by the time that could happen he won't be in office, so he can't be removed. It's likely that they will pursue it to the SCOTUS, but the odds of the ruling being in their favor are about nil.
 

jmaclen

Well-known member
He (Trump or Biden) doesn't have to be convicted to be prevented from holding office. Convicted by the Senate requires 2/3 vote. Being prevented from holding federal office requires a simple majority.
 

Digger

Constitutional Patriot
Staff member
Senate holds the power to convict Trump and remove him from office, and must do so with a two-thirds majority vote. The Senate can also disqualify him from holding future office if he is convicted, but the Constitution doesn’t specify whether that would also require a two-thirds majority vote. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a supermajority vote of two-thirds is required for disqualification. If the Senate were to vote to disqualify a President from future office with a simple majority, it would be the unprecedented, and it could set off a high-stakes battle in the courts. On the other hand, John Roberts has been known to make it up as he goes along.
 
Last edited:

jmaclen

Well-known member
Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “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.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853

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).

Those paragraphs come from the Justia website. If this is correct, since Trump has been impeached, he could be convicted, and separately disqualified or not disqualified. Since Trump has been impeached he could also not be convicted and not separately be disqualified. Or he could be disqualified separately if the Senate chose to do so even if he is not convicted. Same for Biden.
 
Last edited:

tvr

Well-known member
Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “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.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853

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).

Those paragraphs come from the Justia website. If this is correct, since Trump has been impeached, he could be convicted, and separately disqualified or not disqualified. Since Trump has been impeached he could also not be convicted and not separately be disqualified. Or he could be disqualified separately if the Senate chose to do so even if he is not convicted. Same for Biden.

The precedent, where judges have been impeached and barred from serving, is that the Senate must vote by two thirds majority to remove from office before a simple majority can vote to bar from holding future office. Precedence is not an either or situation, it is a Senate two thirds vote that must precede the barring from office vote. The cases you quote removed the judges from office (two thirds vote), then the vote to bar future holding of office was held.

If Roberts does not follow precedent, then we have a kangaroo Supreme Court. It should never even get that far, since, if Biden is inaugurated, a Senate hearing for removal is a mute point. Then again, Pelosi and Schumer care nothing about shredding the rule of law.
 

jmaclen

Well-known member
The precedent, where judges have been impeached and barred from serving, is that the Senate must vote by two thirds majority to remove from office before a simple majority can vote to bar from holding future office. Precedence is not an either or situation, it is a Senate two thirds vote that must precede the barring from office vote. The cases you quote removed the judges from office (two thirds vote), then the vote to bar future holding of office was held.

If Roberts does not follow precedent, then we have a kangaroo Supreme Court. It should never even get that far, since, if Biden is inaugurated, a Senate hearing for removal is a mute point. Then again, Pelosi and Schumer care nothing about shredding the rule of law.
Thanks for that post tvr. Definitely unchartered waters for this whole unprecedented mess. It was late when I posted my last post. I should have included even if Trump is not convicted he could also still be disqualified from holding further office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment if Congress decided to try go in that direction. Simple majority which could later be overturned by 2/3 rds vote of Congress or a future pardon too, I guess...........who knows

Another unprecedented situation.....if for some reason Biden is not inaugurated??????????? I can only assume that you are referring to some kind of terrorist action which would take out Biden, Harris, Pelosi... Since there is not a confirmed Secretary of State yet, Pat Leahy could be president or the second or third person in line at the State Department..........
 
Last edited:

Guvner

Administrator
Staff member
The precedent, where judges have been impeached and barred from serving, is that the Senate must vote by two thirds majority to remove from office before a simple majority can vote to bar from holding future office. Precedence is not an either or situation, it is a Senate two thirds vote that must precede the barring from office vote. The cases you quote removed the judges from office (two thirds vote), then the vote to bar future holding of office was held.

If Roberts does not follow precedent, then we have a kangaroo Supreme Court. It should never even get that far, since, if Biden is inaugurated, a Senate hearing for removal is a mute point. Then again, Pelosi and Schumer care nothing about shredding the rule of law.
Never underestimate Roberts. He's a snake of the first magnitude, a hero right up there with Ginsburg... I would imagine if he does this again the other members of the court will come out and tell us what he's up to just out of concern for the institution of the court.
 

Digger

Constitutional Patriot
Staff member
jmaclen said: Another unprecedented situation.....if for some reason Biden is not inaugurated??????????? I can only assume that you are referring to some kind of terrorist action which would take out Biden, Harris, Pelosi.......Since there is not a confirmed Secretary of State yet, Pat Leahy could be president or the second or third person in line at the State Department.

Since the enactment of the current Presidential Succession Act in 1947, the president pro tempore is third in the line of succession to the presidency, after the vice president and the speaker of the House of Representatives and ahead of the secretary of state. The current president pro tempore of the Senate is Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley. Elected on January 3, 2019, he is the 91st person to serve in this office. Again, the president pro tempore is third in the line of presidential succession, following the vice president and the speaker. Not the Secretary of State.

As to your assumption that tvr was referring to some kind of terroristic action which would take out Biden, Harris, Pelosi......I can't speak for tvr. But in the case of something requiring Biden's role to be filled by a successor, my best guess would be because he either gets lost in his basement between now and then. Or he just forgets he is supposed to go to the Inauguration.
 

Guvner

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for that post tvr. Definitely unchartered waters for this whole unprecedented mess. It was late when I posted my last post. I should have included even if Trump is not convicted he could also still be disqualified from holding further office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment if Congress decided to try go in that direction. Simple majority which could later be overturned by 2/3 rds vote of Congress or a future pardon too, I guess...........who knows

Another unprecedented situation.....if for some reason Biden is not inaugurated??????????? I can only assume that you are referring to some kind of terrorist action which would take out Biden, Harris, Pelosi... Since there is not a confirmed Secretary of State yet, Pat Leahy could be president or the second or third person in line at the State Department..........
My take on what will happen if what most of us know happened despite big techs efforts to shield their chosen one from bad outcomes would be this. The military already knows that Biden is compromised with the amount of money him and his family have taken from our enemies including 1.5 billion dollars from the red Chinese alone and will act on a declaration of Marshall law, either appoint a military leader to protect the country, or have already clued Trump into what is going on and will extend his term to allow a new election, give a certain amount of time for each party to put up a viable, safe candidate and hold an election with ID's. If this came to fruition, I'm assuming Trump knows how poisonous he's become and may appoint a replacement candidate or he may hold all the cards with what will be exposed about Biden and allow them to appoint a dual citizenship party leader from red China to run on the dem side. Just realize this. 2 weeks before the election it was covered up completely by a complicit media that the Biden's were a crime family in an article by the NY Post, who in big media's efforts to stop the story, removed their Twitter account, their Facebook account and not one of the other main stream press news organizations reported a word about it. And this is the United States? And don't overlook the 300 plus lawsuits to stop ID only voting by the dems. Think they had a reason for that?

G..
 
Last edited:

Missouri -- Ma Betty

Well-known member
If Trump is impeached for a 2nd time ,, I heard that makes him ineligible to run for public office again . Is this true ??? Piglosi even said that was her intent,, if I'm correct.
They say he is impeached ; some say he isn't & wont like with Clinton--But I think God will intercede even though most of you say He won't from what you see in the natural BUT God Jehovah in the name of Jesus works in the Supernatural & is a Miralcle Making God His wonders to perform for WE who love, worship & adore Him--God loves & helps His own called by His Holy name, Jesus! Doesn't hurt to believe & have Faith--because the latter does nothing but bring sorrow by satan & his EVIL servants coming & taking charge to kill, steal & destroy God's Righteousness & His good people, by other people sitting back & resting on their LAURELS by doing nothing & allowing him & his EVIL ONES of this sinful world to do so!

Pray for President Trump, Melania & family & The Pences, Pray for we citizens & The USA to stay safe & allow God to help them & us in whatever He has called them to do to endure & overcome all things! God hears & answers His Praying Saints & Prayer Warriors--Therefore, PRAY, as if there may be no tomorrow for it very well could not be with morality & godly PEOPLE in control if we GIVE UP --SO DON"T! Ma
 

calfrope

Well-known member
Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “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.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853

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).

Those paragraphs come from the Justia website. If this is correct, since Trump has been impeached, he could be convicted, and separately disqualified or not disqualified. Since Trump has been impeached he could also not be convicted and not separately be disqualified. Or he could be disqualified separately if the Senate chose to do so even if he is not convicted. Same for Biden.
The only reason why they are trying to disqualify Trump for 2024, is because Trump would win by a landslide, and they know it. Therefore, this second impeachment is much much more important to them than the first impeachment was. The virus was designed to make an economic stand still, and it worked. The Biden voters will eventually realize what they have done, but it will be too late. This will go down in history as one of the most political blunder of all time. I already see that political blunder look on many faces already.
 

Missouri -- Ma Betty

Well-known member
The only reason why they are trying to disqualify Trump for 2024, is because Trump would win by a landslide, and they know it. Therefore, this second impeachment is much much more important to them than the first impeachment was. The virus was designed to make an economic stand still, and it worked. The Biden voters will eventually realize what they have done, but it will be too late. This will go down in history as one of the most political blunder of all time. I already see that political blunder look on many faces already.
They are going to awake to God's Salvation Grace, for a GREAT REVIVAL is coming before The Great tribulation with more souls saved for God's Kingdom, who will inherit new Jerusalem city with Jesus as their savior & Lord! God desires not one soul to perish in the Fires of Hell; therefore, He is very patient in giving even evil ones the opportunity to be saved & be dwelling with Him, eternally! We need to pray for all lost souls to have saving FAITH in Jesus, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST--The ONE & ONLY Savior with Whom we can find His love & only leads us to God Jehovah, our Heavenly Father, Who was, IS & is to come & set up His glorious everlasting kingdom for all saved in Him, Christ Jesus! Amen! Ma
 

jmaclen

Well-known member
Since the enactment of the current Presidential Succession Act in 1947, the president pro tempore is third in the line of succession to the presidency, after the vice president and the speaker of the House of Representatives and ahead of the secretary of state. The current president pro tempore of the Senate is Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley. Elected on January 3, 2019, he is the 91st person to serve in this office. Again, the president pro tempore is third in the line of presidential succession, following the vice president and the speaker. Not the Secretary of State.
Never said the Secretary of State was third in line. Read my post carefully. I only said there is not a confirmed Secretary of State for the incoming administration. Then I mentioned Pat Leahy followed by second or third in line from the Department of State.
 
Top