Trump claims the Constitution is unconstitutional

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I question your understanding of due process.

Cool.

[japantiger 4,051]

17 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I question your understanding of due process.

Enlighten us then...I'm sure you'll reference the "Orange Man Bad" amendment.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

1 minute ago, japantiger said:

Enlighten us then...I'm sure you'll reference the "Orange Man Bad" amendment.

What exactly do you find unconstitutional about the impeachment process? What required process is lacking? What process is due and what do you cite as the source of that process? 

[japantiger 4,051]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What exactly do you find unconstitutional about the impeachment process? What required process is lacking? What process is due and what do you cite as the source of that process? 

Already did that above.    You're the one saying the current process does satisfy due process; or that Trump isn't entitled to it.  Balls in your court.  

[TexasTiger 12,811]

10 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Already did that above.    You're the one saying the current process does satisfy due process; or that Trump isn't entitled to it.  Balls in your court.  

So you think the 5th Amendment governs impeachment, not the impeachment clause? Interesting take. Was Clinton denied due process? Because I don’t think he was. Sure, I thought the motivation was largely political, but he got the process outlined in the Constitution for impeachment.

Just curious you and @NolaAuTiger think Trump is being threatened with deprivation of which of those three things listed in the 5th amendment?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

C’mon Head-slapping Sue! Break your pattern and actually contribute!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Just curious you and @NolaAuTiger think Trump is being threatened with deprivation of which of those three things listed in the 5th amendment?

What’s the initial basis of this assumption as it includes me?  

[TexasTiger 12,811]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What’s the initial basis of this assumption as it includes me?  

Your application of the 5th amendment 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Your application of the 5th amendment 

How does that reasonably indicate that my position is “Trump is being threatened with deprivation of [a life, liberty, or property interest]” ????

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

How does that reasonably indicate that my position is “Trump is being threatened with deprivation of [a life, liberty, or property interest]” ????

 

 

Then what are you talking about on this impeachment thread?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Then what are you talking about on this impeachment thread?

An issue others have been “talking about on this impeachment thread:” Whether and/or when due process applies in the impeachment inquiry. 

Keep up Tex.

 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

55 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

An issue others have been “talking about on this impeachment thread:” Whether and/or when due process applies in the impeachment inquiry. 

Keep up Tex.

 

Dance, lawyer, dance.

Due process is misunderstood by many in your profession. No need to dodge and deflect. Lawyers can’t be knowledgeable about every legal concept— the fields too broad!

[japantiger 4,051]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So you think the 5th Amendment governs impeachment, not the impeachment clause? Interesting take. Was Clinton denied due process? Because I don’t think he was. Sure, I thought the motivation was largely political, but he got the process outlined in the Constitution for impeachment.

Just curious you and @NolaAuTiger think Trump is being threatened with deprivation of which of those three things listed in the 5th amendment?

Dumbass strawman even from you.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

2 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Dumbass strawman even from you.

You are so far out of your element you have no idea how stupid you look.

[japantiger 4,051]

41 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You are so far out of your element you have no idea how stupid you look.

Let me make it easy for you.  One Constitutional provision is not cancelled when you exercise the provisions of another one.  And the 5th and 14th are there specifically to make sure no matter how the Gov't interacts with you; you can't have your basic rights taken away.  It was so important; that the exact same words were repeated in both Amendments.  It's really simple.  So, again; this was a dumbass strawman, even for you.  The fact that there is an impeachment provision; doesn't cancel the rest of the constitution.  Remember, the constitution; that thing that keeps the US gov't from treating you like gov'ts throughout history and most other gov'ts in the world treat their citizens.  

Update: I just got around to reading the text of the letter the President sent Congress...it would seem a group of well qualified high powered lawyers agree with me:

"For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. "

2nd update.  this letter is perfect:

"Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that “[t]he power of impeachment … demands a rigorous level of due process,” and that in this context “due process mean … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. ” All of these procedures have been abandoned here." (not sure why this formatted this way when I copied it in; the text has no strikethru in the letter)

 

Full text of letter:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-admin-shreds-democrats-impeachment-attempt-in-scathing-legal-letter/

[TexasTiger 12,811]

45 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Let me make it easy for you.  One Constitutional provision is not cancelled when you exercise the provisions of another one.  And the 5th and 14th are there specifically to make sure no matter how the Gov't interacts with you; you can't have your basic rights taken away.  It was so important; that the exact same words were repeated in both Amendments.  It's really simple.  So, again; this was a dumbass strawman, even for you.  The fact that there is an impeachment provision; doesn't cancel the rest of the constitution.  Remember, the constitution; that thing that keeps the US gov't from treating you like gov'ts throughout history and most other gov'ts in the world treat their citizens.  

Update: I just got around to reading the text of the letter the President sent Congress...it would seem a group of well qualified high powered lawyers agree with me:

"For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. "

2nd update.  this letter is perfect:

"Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that “[t]he power of impeachment … demands a rigorous level of due process,” and that in this context “due process mean … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. ” All of these procedures have been abandoned here." (not sure why this formatted this way when I copied it in; the text has no strikethru in the letter)

 

Full text of letter:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-admin-shreds-democrats-impeachment-attempt-in-scathing-legal-letter/

I asked you a simple question— —if you think the 5th Amendment applies, which of the three potential deprivations is Trump threatened with? Because it doesn’t apply to every government action— it only applies when one of those enumerated interests is at stake. So are you saying impeachment threatens his life? Liberty? Or property? Which one and how so? That’s a fundamental element of the 5th Amendment.

If that element is met, then the question is what process is due? There are administrative courts and governmental processes that determine whether a person will be deprived of their property that operate with far less burdensome process that criminal courts determining loss of liberty and life. Due process is not a static concept. What process is due depends on a number of factors. Huge deprivations of property are decided with far less procedural protections than a person charged with shoplifting an iPhone will receive.

So what’s at stake? Impeachment neither kills you nor locks you up. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Dance, lawyer, dance.

Due process is misunderstood by many in your profession. No need to dodge and deflect. Lawyers can’t be knowledgeable about every legal concept— the fields too broad!

You are not making any sense. 

In what way have I dodged or deflected? You are all talk and no substance whatsoever. Perhaps that’s what this forum is for..... 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

14 hours 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."   

 

Sounds to me like you are conflating the process associated with criminal charges with the impeachment process.  They are not the same thing. For one thing, unlike a criminal charge, impeachment carries no risk of depriving the subject of "life liberty or loss of property".

Impeachment is a political process whereby an elected official can be removed from office. This is distinct from the criminal process, which is undoubtedly why the Constitution bestows that power to the House - a popularly elected body - instead of the Courts or Justice Department.  It's kept within the political realm.  

And like it or not, the constitution does not specify any sort of process regarding impeachment.  It leaves it entirely up to the House to set rules and procedure.

And aside from it's constitutional irrelevance, exactly what is the basis of claiming Trump is being denied due process in this impeachment query? 

What is the house doing that would cause anyone to claim he is being denied "due process"?  

It seems to me that Trump is the one violating the constitution by ignoring subpoenas and otherwise obstructing the house's ability to fulfill their constitutional duty of political oversight (which itself constitutes a reason to impeach).

 

[homersapien 11,354]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

Let me make it easy for you.  One Constitutional provision is not cancelled when you exercise the provisions of another one.  And the 5th and 14th are there specifically to make sure no matter how the Gov't interacts with you; you can't have your basic rights taken away.  It was so important; that the exact same words were repeated in both Amendments.  It's really simple.  So, again; this was a dumbass strawman, even for you.  The fact that there is an impeachment provision; doesn't cancel the rest of the constitution.  Remember, the constitution; that thing that keeps the US gov't from treating you like gov'ts throughout history and most other gov'ts in the world treat their citizens.  

Update: I just got around to reading the text of the letter the President sent Congress...it would seem a group of well qualified high powered lawyers agree with me:

"For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. "

2nd update.  this letter is perfect:

"Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that “[t]he power of impeachment … demands a rigorous level of due process,” and that in this context “due process mean … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. ” All of these procedures have been abandoned here." (not sure why this formatted this way when I copied it in; the text has no strikethru in the letter)

 

Full text of letter:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-admin-shreds-democrats-impeachment-attempt-in-scathing-legal-letter/

Impeachment is not about taking anyone's "basic rights away". 

It's about removing an elected official from office, not sanctioning their life, freedom or fortune.  And the constitution addresses the impeachment process directly.

There is no "basic right" of retaining an elected office if one is impeached and convicted.

Finally, the house committee investigation is not a trial, the impeachment trial happens in the Senate. There are no provisions in the constitution that require a right of cross-examination of witnesses in a house investigation process.

And again, impeachment is not a criminal process it's a political process that is addressed independently by the constitution.  The rules associated with the criminal process do not apply to the impeachment process which is (broadly) specified by the constitution.

And here's a different take on the president's letter, which is partisan BS:

It's tempting to ignore Trump’s unhinged letter to Congress. But this is different.

IT MAY be tempting for some Americans to disregard the unhinged proclamation that the White House sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday. “President Trump is a counterpuncher,” his apologists so often say, as though that absolves him of flouting the rules. “It’s just more of the same,” those lulled into Trump-era apathy might think.

But this is different. The president is asserting autocratic authority to ignore the people’s elected representatives and the Constitution that governs them. This is a new stage in an already dangerous presidency.

The letter, astonishingly signed by an individual with a law degree, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, declares that the president will cooperate in no way with the House’s impeachment inquiry. It follows a White House order that a key executive branch witness may not testify before Congress. “You seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen,” Mr. Cipollone fumes. “The President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch.”

To bolster his case, Mr. Cipollone invents restrictions on how the House may conduct impeachment inquiries, even though the Constitution vests the House with “the sole power of impeachment” and specifies that the House “may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Mr. Cipollone also argues that the case against Mr. Trump is so weak, the president’s behavior so “completely appropriate,” that the House’s motive must be illegitimate. It is House Democrats, he insists, who must be investigated.

“Bananas”; “a barely-lawyered temper tantrum”; “pure hackery”: These are just some of the words that Republican lawyers have used to describe Mr. Cipollone’s screed.

Democrats should conduct their inquiries with the good faith that many Republicans have not shown. That includes maximum transparency, so legislators can persuade the public to consider a body of evidence, collected fairly, against Mr. Trump. But the right of the House to conduct its investigation and, if it so chooses, to impeach Mr. Trump is beyond doubt. So is the responsibility of the executive branch to comply with legal congressional subpoenas.

The president does not get to decide which congressional actions are legitimate and, therefore, which congressional commands he accepts. If he has a specific claim that his circumscribed right to executive privilege should prevent the turnover of a particular document or the testimony of a particular witness, he should make a case-by-case argument. Instead, he has essentially claimed that he can ignore Congress if he so chooses. And, in true Trumpian fashion, he insists that his lawlessness is constitutionally approved while those legitimately endowed with the power to hold him to account are betraying the nation’s founding document.

In fact, the Constitution unambiguously empowers the House to conduct an impeachment, and it grants the president no authority to impede it. If members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — do not flatly reject Mr. Trump’s letter, they will humiliate themselves and shred the constitutional order. They cannot allow the president to say that the law is not the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-proclamation-that-hell-ignore-congress-is-unconstitutional-and-unhinged/2019/10/09/d5353d82-eacd-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

 

[homersapien 11,354]

13 hours ago, japantiger said:

Already did that above.    You're the one saying the current process does satisfy due process; or that Trump isn't entitled to it.  Balls in your court.  

Could you please repeat it?

What element of due process is being violated?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

33 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You are not making any sense. 

In what way have I dodged or deflected? You are all talk and no substance whatsoever. Perhaps that’s what this forum is for..... 

 

All you do is play games. I keep thinking you might actually engage in a meaningful way. I think in this case you’ve realized you were wrong, but your ginormous ego won’t let you admit that. But you’ve won a fan in Tiger Sue.  That should tell you you need a course correction.

[japantiger 4,051]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Impeachment is not about taking anyone's "basic rights away". 

It's about removing an elected official from office, not life, freedom or fortune.  And the constitution addresses the impeachment process directly.

There is no "basic right" of retaining an elected office if one is impeached and convicted.

 

The simplest is the court has ruled that a Gov't job confers due process requirements on the Gov't.  You can't just get rid of folks without providing a procedure for them to face the accuser and answer charges, etc.  None of these are present in the current proceeding as called out in the Presidents letter.  

[japantiger 4,051]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sounds to me like you are conflating the process associated with criminal charges with the impeachment process.  They are not the same thing. For one thing, unlike a criminal charge, impeachment carries no risk of depriving the subject of "life liberty or loss of property".

Impeachment is a political process whereby an elected official can be removed from office. This is distinct from the criminal process, which is undoubtedly why the Constitution bestows that power to the House - a popularly elected body - instead of the Courts or Justice Department.  It's kept within the political realm.  

And like it or not, the constitution does not specify any sort of process regarding impeachment.  It leaves it entirely up to the House to set rules and procedure.

And aside from it's constitutional irrelevance, exactly what is the basis of claiming Trump is being denied due process in this impeachment query? 

What is the house doing that would cause anyone to claim he is being denied "due process"?  

It seems to me that Trump is the one violating the constitution by ignoring subpoenas and otherwise obstructing the house's ability to fulfill their constitutional duty of political oversight (which itself constitutes a reason to impeach).

 

Please keep up.  The Presidents letter is so clear even you should be able to understand it.

[homersapien 11,354]

2 minutes ago, japantiger said:

The simplest is the court has ruled that a Gov't job confers due process requirements on the Gov't.  You can't just get rid of folks without providing a procedure for them to face the accuser and answer charges, etc.  None of these are present in the current proceeding as called out in the Presidents letter.  

The house committee investigation is not a trial, it's an investigation.

Trump will get a chance to "face his accusers" in the Senate. He has no right to simply stonewall the investigation in total on any basis, which is exactly what his letter attempts to do.

And the court has not ruled on that attempt. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

6 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Please keep up.  The Presidents letter is so clear even you should be able to understand it.

Yeah, it's typical Trump.  Partisan BS and bluster.  Pure deflection.  Just like declaring his political challengers traitors.

He is trying to declare himself above the constitution.

(And try not to be such a jerk, if you can.)