Trump claims the Constitution is unconstitutional

[TexasTiger 12,829]

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

Doubt the Constitutional intentions mean the "sole power" of the Dem clown show we are seeing.

[japantiger 4,051]

That pesky constitution....

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And re-affirmed in the 14th Amendment.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Doubt the Constitutional intentions mean the "sole power" of the Dem clown show we are seeing.

Wait, Republicans aren't Constitutional textualists anymore?  When did this happen?!  I've been told over and over that there's not supposed to be room for interpretation in the Constitution!

[japantiger 4,051]

42 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Wait, Republicans aren't Constitutional textualists anymore?  When did this happen?!  I've been told over and over that there's not supposed to be room for interpretation in the Constitution!

See Constitutional "text"  on due process clause.  Still love that one....didn't you leftists love the 5th Amendment when Obama's guys used it...why is it a problem now.  Oh, and just to be clear that it was an important hallmark of our freedoms; it was repeated verbatim in the 14th Amendment.   Why do you guys always have a problem when Trump exercises his rights like the 1st, 5th, 14th, etc., amendments?

[homersapien 11,362]

Due process refers to criminal law.  Impeachment is specifically proscribed by the Constitution as a separate, political process.

Regardless, there is nothing the Democrats are doing that impedes Trump's (assumed) right to "due process" (related to impeachment).  On the other hand, Trump is clearly obstructing justice by directing State Department representatives to ignore the House's subpoenas.

[japantiger 4,051]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Due process refers to criminal law.  Impeachment is specifically proscribed by the Constitution as a separate, political process.

Regardless, there is nothing the Democrats are doing that impedes Trump's (assumed) right to "due process" (related to impeachment).  On the other hand, Trump is clearly obstructing justice by directing State Department representatives to ignore the House's subpoenas.

Funny, but the constitution provides no provision like you reference...nice job reading in something that is not in the text or record...and just to close this loop; according to the Supreme court due process also guarantees "a fair procedural" due process; which this current clown show does not.  An inquisition by one party; not allowing the other side to call witnesses or rebut; or deprives one side simple due process (such as the right to avoid self incrimination or anything approaching handing the other side more ammunition in a kangaroo court) is, well, sort of the opposite of due process.  But nice try.   A president has the same rights as everyone else; and frankly even more; to fight unwarranted affronts on the executives "privilege of privacy in their deliberations".  

[homersapien 11,362]

24 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Funny, but the constitution provides no provision like you reference...nice job reading in something that is not in the text or record...

 

Constitutional provisions

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

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.

—Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

—Article II, Section 2

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

—Article II, Section 4

 

 

I missed the part in which the constitution equates impeachment to a criminal trial or specifies what "due process" of an impeachment process is.

 

[homersapien 11,362]

34 minutes ago, japantiger said:

...and just to close this loop; according to the Supreme court due process also guarantees "a fair procedural" due process; which this current clown show does not.  An inquisition by one party; not allowing the other side to call witnesses or rebut; or deprives one side simple due process (such as the right to avoid self incrimination or anything approaching handing the other side more ammunition in a kangaroo court) is, well, sort of the opposite of due process. 

....and it's

 

[homersapien 11,362]

36 minutes ago, japantiger said:

A president has the same rights as everyone else; and frankly even more; to fight unwarranted affronts on the executives "privilege of privacy in their deliberations".  

Trump is obstructing justice by refusing to allow State Department officials to appear before the house committee.  (Ironically, thereby handing the house another specific article of impeachment - obstruction.)

The president is not above the law. 

The impeachment investigation - official House query or not - is perfectly within the constitutional responsibility of the House committee. 

Executive privilege does not does not supercede the constitutional responsibility of the Congress - an equal branch of the government - to investigate a possible crime.  Remember Nixon?

[japantiger 4,051]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

....and it's

 

Hmm...I'll let Justice Stevens know...I used his words.

[japantiger 4,051]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump is obstructing justice by refusing to allow State Department officials to appear before the house committee.  (Ironically, thereby handing the house another specific article of impeachment - obstruction.)

The president is not above the law. 

The impeachment investigation - official House query or not - is perfectly within the constitutional responsibility of the House committee. 

Executive privilege does not does not supercede the constitutional responsibility of the Congress - an equal branch of the government - to investigate a possible crime.  Remember Nixon?

There you go again...the President isn't below the law either.  He has the same rights and guarantees as anyone else.  I know you don't like that...you leftists never do.  Take your beef to the Supreme Court...I just used their words.  

[homersapien 11,362]

2 minutes ago, japantiger said:

There you go again...the President isn't below the law either.  He has the same rights and guarantees as anyone else.  I know you don't like that...you leftists never do.  Take your beef to the Supreme Court...I just used their words.  

Sure he does if he actually goes out on 5th Avenue and shoots someone like he is so fond of saying.

But an impeachment is not a criminal process, it's an impeachment process, which is loosely proscribed in the constitution.

And you have yet to describe exactly how that process - currently in the impeachment investigation phase - is depriving the "stable genius" of due process. 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

11 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Hmm...I'll let Justice Stevens know...I used his words.

Justice Stevens said this?

....due process also guarantees "a fair procedural" due process; which this current clown show does not.  An inquisition by one party; not allowing the other side to call witnesses or rebut; or deprives one side simple due process (such as the right to avoid self incrimination or anything approaching handing the other side more ammunition in a kangaroo court) is, well, sort of the opposite of due process.  But nice try. 

 

Again tell us exactly how the "stable genius" is being deprived of due process? 

He is the one who is obstructing witness testimony.

[japantiger 4,051]

Justice Stevens defined fair procedural due process.  Sort of the reason you have things like Miranda warnings, etc.  You can't just do what you want to do and not play fair.   If he had known you; he would had added the assclown part.

The current process has no procedure for due process.  One side is deprived of the ability to call witnesses, cross examine and all the information resulting from the current process is being held by one side and not released to the person charged.  Also, the person leading the "whatever it is"; is actually a fact witness in the alleged whistleblower (bad term since this person has no knowledge of what actually happened) complaint given that he was involved in developing the complaint.  So, yeah, I would say that violates any reasonable standard of due process.  Name one judicial proceeding that works this way; well in the US that is?  Plenty of them in hell-holes around the world work that way; but not ours.  

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

3 hours ago, japantiger said:

Justice Stevens defined fair procedural due process.  Sort of the reason you have things like Miranda warnings, etc.  You can't just do what you want to do and not play fair.   If he had known you; he would had added the assclown part.

The current process has no procedure for due process.  One side is deprived of the ability to call witnesses, cross examine and all the information resulting from the current process is being held by one side and not released to the person charged.  Also, the person leading the "whatever it is"; is actually a fact witness in the alleged whistleblower (bad term since this person has no knowledge of what actually happened) complaint given that he was involved in developing the complaint.  So, yeah, I would say that violates any reasonable standard of due process.  Name one judicial proceeding that works this way; well in the US that is?  Plenty of them in hell-holes around the world work that way; but not ours.  

 

@japantiger comes out squarely against the Constitution when it suits him.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

[channonc 466]

7 hours ago, japantiger said:

Funny, but the constitution provides no provision like you reference...nice job reading in something that is not in the text or record...and just to close this loop; according to the Supreme court due process also guarantees "a fair procedural" due process; which this current clown show does not.  An inquisition by one party; not allowing the other side to call witnesses or rebut; or deprives one side simple due process (such as the right to avoid self incrimination or anything approaching handing the other side more ammunition in a kangaroo court) is, well, sort of the opposite of due process.  But nice try.   A president has the same rights as everyone else; and frankly even more; to fight unwarranted affronts on the executives "privilege of privacy in their deliberations".  

This shows your lack of knowledge about this process. The House's role is to do an investigation, and either submit articles of impeachment (charges) or not. If articles are filed, then a trial affording the President due process, and time to present a defense happens in the Senate. This would be akin to a person being able to cross examine witnesses in front of the grand jury. That is not a right in our system. As of now, no formal charges (i.e. articles of impeachment) have been filed against the President. An investigation is underway...

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Wait, Republicans aren't Constitutional textualists anymore?  When did this happen?!  I've been told over and over that there's not supposed to be room for interpretation in the Constitution!

Well then whoever told you that lacks a fundamental understanding of the term "textualist."

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

4 minutes ago, channonc said:

That is not a right in our system. As of now, no formal charges (i.e. articles of impeachment) have been filed against the President. An investigation is underway...

Why not proceed with the formal charges?

[channonc 466]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Why not proceed with the formal charges?

That's the point of the impeachment inquiry-- which is the investigation-- after they complete the investigation, they will either file articles (charges) or not. From there, a trial will be conducted in the Senate with SC Justice Roberts presiding. 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 minute ago, channonc said:

That's the point of the impeachment inquiry-- which is the investigation-- after they complete the investigation, they will either file articles (charges) or not. From there, a trial will be conducted in the Senate with SC Justice Roberts presiding. 

How much investigation do we need on one man? 

Are you saying that what we read daily could be inaccurate?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, channonc said:

This shows your lack of knowledge about this process. The House's role is to do an investigation, and either submit articles of impeachment (charges) or not. If articles are filed, then a trial affording the President due process, and time to present a defense happens in the Senate. This would be akin to a person being able to cross examine witnesses in front of the grand jury. That is not a right in our system. As of now, no formal charges (i.e. articles of impeachment) have been filed against the President. An investigation is underway...

I would actually question your knowledge of the due process clause based on the statement you just provided.

It is strongly established that if the government is seeking to deprive or has deprived someone of his or her life, liberty, or property, it is obligated to do so by means of due process. Moreover, this principle indisputably applies to investigations conducted by either branch of the United States federal congress. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long-recognized this rule, as Chief Justice Warren noted: "The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of government action."   

 

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would actually question your knowledge of the due process clause based on the statement you just provided.

It is strongly established that if the government is seeking to deprive or has deprived someone of his or her life, liberty, or property, it is obligated to do so by means of due process. Moreover, this principle indisputably applies to investigations conducted by either branch of the United States federal congress. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long-recognized this rule, as Chief Justice Warren noted: "The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of government action."   

 

Making way too much sense here.  

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would actually question your knowledge of the due process clause based on the statement you just provided.

It is strongly established that if the government is seeking to deprive or has deprived someone of his or her life, liberty, or property, it is obligated to do so by means of due process. Moreover, this principle indisputably applies to investigations conducted by either branch of the United States federal congress. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long-recognized this rule, as Chief Justice Warren noted: "The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of government action."   

 

I question your understanding of due process.