Trump claims the Constitution is unconstitutional

[japantiger 4,051]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

“A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments." The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the "ultimate intrepreter of the Constitution," a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was "a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."”

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740

The suit was related to how the senate "tried" the case; by using a committee of selected senators to conduct the trial and then recommend the result to the full Senate. The claimant said all senators had to hear the all the witnesses, etc..

The reference above that "The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule" was the courts way of saying due process had to be followed and as long as the Senate used due process; the court was going to stay out of how it conducted the "trial".

In this case, the referenced Senate Rule XI which covered the impeachment process; required the impeachment committee conduct the proceeding by 1) both sides calling witnesses, 2) testimony being taken, 3)  cross examination,4)  the claimant was allowed to testify, 4) a full transcript and report of all testimony/information was provided to the full senate, 5) a report stating the uncontested facts and 6) summarized all the evidence even on the contested facts; the committee  and 7) the impeachment managers submitted "extensive" final briefs to the full senate.    And, the rule further stated that the full Senate could demand witness testify in person in front of them if they wanted more info to reach a decision...but that was not required.

I don't think you proved what you thought you were proving.  

[TexasTiger 12,835]

20 minutes ago, japantiger said:

The suit was related to how the senate "tried" the case; by using a committee of selected senators to conduct the trial and then recommend the result to the full Senate. The claimant said all senators had to hear the all the witnesses, etc..

The reference above that "The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule" was the courts way of saying due process had to be followed and as long as the Senate used due process; the court was going to stay out of how it conducted the "trial".

In this case, the referenced Senate Rule XI which covered the impeachment process; required the impeachment committee conduct the proceeding by 1) both sides calling witnesses, 2) testimony being taken, 3)  cross examination,4)  the claimant was allowed to testify, 4) a full transcript and report of all testimony/information was provided to the full senate, 5) a report stating the uncontested facts and 6) summarized all the evidence even on the contested facts; the committee  and 7) the impeachment managers submitted "extensive" final briefs to the full senate.    And, the rule further stated that the full Senate could demand witness testify in person in front of them if they wanted more info to reach a decision...but that was not required.

I don't think you proved what you thought you were proving.  

I proved exactly that. The process due was in the impeachment clause. That’s the larger rationale for the Court’s decision. They overturned a lower court that made your argument about the 5th Amendment. Read the case itself. Read both of them without an eye on proving something.

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I proved exactly that. The process due was in the impeachment clause. That’s the larger rationale for the Court’s decision. They overturned a lower court that made your argument about the 5th Amendment. Read the case itself. Read both of them without an eye on proving something.

They intervened because Nixon was asking for Judicial review to overturn based on using a committee as opposed to being heard by the full senate.   His position was this didn't constitute a "trial".  The Court ruled whether the full senate had to be hear or a committee wasn't up to the courts; but was the Senate's sole discretion as it still provided the due process of a trial.  The exact words were:

"The Impeachment Trial Clause commits to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments," subject to three procedural requirements: the Senate shall be on oath or affirmation; the Chief Justice shall preside when the President is tried; and conviction shall be upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. It seems fair to conclude that the Clause contemplates that the Senate may determine, within broad boundaries, such subsidiary issues as the procedures for receipt and consideration of evidence necessary to satisfy its duty to "try" impeachments."  

It is clear that the Framers were familiar with English impeachment practice and with that of the States employing a variant of the English model at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Hence there is little doubt that the term "try" as used in Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, meant that the Senate should conduct its proceedings in a manner somewhat resembling a judicial proceeding. Indeed, it is safe to assume that Senate trials were to follow the practice in England and the States, which contemplated a formal hearing on the charges, at which the accused would be represented by counsel, evidence would be presented, and the accused would have the opportunity to be heard.

Further they said:

 

In short, textual and historical evidence reveals that the Impeachment Trial Clause was not meant to bind the hands of the Senate beyond establishing a set of minimal procedures. Without identifying the exact contours of these procedures, it is sufficient to say that the Senate's use of a fact finding committee under Rule XI is entirely compatible with the Constitution's command that the Senate "try all impeachments." Petitioner's challenge to his conviction must therefore fail.

There is an implied process required to satisfy the "trial" requirement; but those are not spelled out in the Constitution; but are inherent in common law and practice; they were codified in Senate Rule XI;  as basic "due process" considerations are necessary to satisfy the "trial" requirements (gather evidence, consider evidence, etc).  You seem to be confused on both the purpose of the case and the details or the opinions and ruling.    

The "due process" used was specified in the Senate rules; which followed common law, common practice used in the various states at the time of the founding and an expectation that the process would be fair.  Justice Souter concurring opinion was particularly pointed when it pointed out you can't run a sham process.  The Court was to stay out of the Legislature's business; unless the actions of the  Legislature were so egregious that they "threatened the intergrity of the results"

"One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply" 'a bad guy,'" ante, at 239 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence. 

I think what we have going on in the Legislature right now meets the "threaten the integrity of the result" and basic fairness.  A Kangaroo court trumping up charges without due process would not meet any requirement called out in this ruling...and neither should it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I proved exactly that. The process due was in the impeachment clause. That’s the larger rationale for the Court’s decision. They overturned a lower court that made your argument about the 5th Amendment. Read the case itself. Read both of them without an eye on proving something.

You just spewed so much flagrant bs. You didn’t read jack squat.

 

 

 

[AUDub 11,147]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You just spewed so much flagrant bs. You didn’t read jack squat.

 

 

 

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they're wrong without explaining why. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

52 minutes ago, japantiger said:

They intervened because Nixon was asking for Judicial review to overturn based on using a committee as opposed to being heard by the full senate.   His position was this didn't constitute a "trial".  The Court ruled whether the full senate had to be hear or a committee wasn't up to the courts; but was the Senate's sole discretion as it still provided the due process of a trial.  The exact words were:

"The Impeachment Trial Clause commits to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments," subject to three procedural requirements: the Senate shall be on oath or affirmation; the Chief Justice shall preside when the President is tried; and conviction shall be upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. It seems fair to conclude that the Clause contemplates that the Senate may determine, within broad boundaries, such subsidiary issues as the procedures for receipt and consideration of evidence necessary to satisfy its duty to "try" impeachments."  

It is clear that the Framers were familiar with English impeachment practice and with that of the States employing a variant of the English model at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Hence there is little doubt that the term "try" as used in Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, meant that the Senate should conduct its proceedings in a manner somewhat resembling a judicial proceeding. Indeed, it is safe to assume that Senate trials were to follow the practice in England and the States, which contemplated a formal hearing on the charges, at which the accused would be represented by counsel, evidence would be presented, and the accused would have the opportunity to be heard.

Further they said:

 

In short, textual and historical evidence reveals that the Impeachment Trial Clause was not meant to bind the hands of the Senate beyond establishing a set of minimal procedures. Without identifying the exact contours of these procedures, it is sufficient to say that the Senate's use of a fact finding committee under Rule XI is entirely compatible with the Constitution's command that the Senate "try all impeachments." Petitioner's challenge to his conviction must therefore fail.

There is an implied process required to satisfy the "trial" requirement; but those are not spelled out in the Constitution; but are inherent in common law and practice; they were codified in Senate Rule XI;  as basic "due process" considerations are necessary to satisfy the "trial" requirements (gather evidence, consider evidence, etc).  You seem to be confused on both the purpose of the case and the details or the opinions and ruling.    

The "due process" used was specified in the Senate rules; which followed common law, common practice used in the various states at the time of the founding and an expectation that the process would be fair.  Justice Souter concurring opinion was particularly pointed when it pointed out you can't run a sham process.  The Court was to stay out of the Legislature's business; unless the actions of the  Legislature were so egregious that they "threatened the intergrity of the results"

"One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply" 'a bad guy,'" ante, at 239 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence. 

I think what we have going on in the Legislature right now meets the "threaten the integrity of the result" and basic fairness.  A Kangaroo court trumping up charges without due process would not meet any requirement called out in this ruling...and neither should it.

But there’s no actual evidence that’s happening. The trial, if there is one, will be in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is running ads saying he won’t let a conviction happen before there have even been charges. If you’re looking for a due process concern, there it is. It’s not to be found in Trump’s tweets or his lawyer’s rant filled letter.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

31 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You just spewed so much flagrant bs. You didn’t read jack squat.

 

 

 

Rehnquist spewed it. And it was unanimous. I overestimated you. I do that sometimes. My bad.

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Rehnquist spewed it. And it was unanimous. I overestimated you. I do that sometimes. My bad.

Prepare for a wall of legalese gobbledygook. He's wrong and he knows it. At least, he should, newly minted lawyer though he may be.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Prepare for a wall of legalese gobbledygook. He's wrong and he knows it. At least, he should, newly minted lawyer though he may be.

The same legal tradition informs the impeachment clause that informs the 5th Amendment, but the first doesn’t rely on the second. You get to a similar place and there’s no reason to think Trump wouldn’t get at least the process Clinton did— probably better since the reluctant “DA” has already promised exoneration.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Rehnquist spewed it. And it was unanimous. I overestimated you. I do that sometimes. My bad.

No Rehnquist did not. You totally missed the issue. You also said the decision overturned a lower court decision, which is wrong: “They overturned a lower court that made your argument about the 5th Amendment. Read the case itself.” You may have pulled that out of your behind, but you certainly didn’t pull it from the case.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

There should be some kind of rule for telling someone they're wrong without explaining why. 

We should have a “constitutional convention” for the board. You, Me, Brad, and PT can be the drafters. 

[japantiger 4,051]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But there’s no actual evidence that’s happening. The trial, if there is one, will be in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is running ads saying he won’t let a conviction happen before there have even been charges. If you’re looking for a due process concern, there it is. It’s not to be found in Trump’s tweets or his lawyer’s rant filled letter.

You really haven't been paying attention. 

• The House Chair is a fact-witness in the investigation ... he and his staff aided the leaker in preparing his leak ... he should not be allowed to participate in the investigation
• The Republicans are not allowed to cross examine
• The Transcripts and information being gathered  are being withheld from the Republicans and the accused
• The Chair is selectively releasing quotes; while withholding the body of the testimony
• Exculpatory information is being withheld.  

[TexasTiger 12,835]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No Rehnquist did not. You totally missed the issue. You also said the decision overturned a lower court decision, which is wrong: “They overturned a lower court that made your argument about the 5th Amendment. Read the case itself.” You may have pulled that out of your behind, but you certainly didn’t pull it from the case.

 

The Nixon decision overturned the Hastings case that made the 5th Amendment argument:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1993840837fsupp31839.xml

[TexasTiger 12,835]

Just now, japantiger said:

You really haven't been paying attention. 

• The House Chair is a fact-witness in the investigation ... he and his staff aided the leaker in preparing his leak ... he should not be allowed to participate in the investigation
• The Republicans are not allowed to cross examine
• The Transcripts and information being gathered  are being withheld from the Republicans and the accused
• The Chair is selectively releasing quotes; while withholding the body of the testimony
• Exculpatory information is being withheld.  

The trial, if there is one, will be in the Senate. That’s where there is an opportunity to defend onself.

[homersapien 11,367]

19 hours ago, japantiger said:

So you're not going to post a Trump "lie" we can engage on?  I'm here...ready to discuss.  Alas, ,yes, I know, Orange Man Bad (narcisistic phychopathic insanity; how original 🙂 

Well, there are literally thousands to choose from, but one of the most egregious and recent is the big lie about Biden "withholding" a billion dollars to Ukraine in order to stop the (non-existent) investigation into his son.  It's running non-stop on a political ad in South Carolina.

BTW, you misspelled "narcissistic" and "psychopathic", both of which apply to Trump.  And while I recognized it independently, it's not exactly original:

https://psychcentral.com/lib/donald-trump-and-the-narcissistic-illusion-of-grandiosity/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201608/does-trump-suffer-narcissistic-personality-disorder

https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-mental-stability-questioned-americas-most-psychopathic-city

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310467470_Donald_Trump_Narcissist_Psychopath_or_Representative_of_the_People_Donald_Trump

I could go on, but what's the point?

[SaturdayGT 719]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, there are literally thousands to choose from, but one of the most egregious and recent is the big lie about Biden "withholding" a billion dollars to Ukraine in order to stop the (non-existent) investigation into his son.  It's running non-stop on a political ad in South Carolina.

BTW, you misspelled "narcissistic" and "psychopathic", both of which apply to Trump.  And while I recognized it independently, it's not exactly original:

https://psychcentral.com/lib/donald-trump-and-the-narcissistic-illusion-of-grandiosity/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201608/does-trump-suffer-narcissistic-personality-disorder

https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-mental-stability-questioned-americas-most-psychopathic-city

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310467470_Donald_Trump_Narcissist_Psychopath_or_Representative_of_the_People_Donald_Trump

I could go on, but what's the point?

   I feel like there is some sort of Irony that just makes me laugh here. Ive seen a lot of psychological evaluations on Trump like this.....Seems to me like It takes a whole lot of narcissism for one to feel as though they are so gifted that they can make a true psychological evaluation on a human being from a far.  ....With that, I too think Trumps a narcissist, then again....I dont think any politician can possibly win an any election with out a good bit of narcissism.  I mean they are salesmen selling themselves to the public to win their vote lol!!  ...But thats just me winging it from my armchair Psychologist viewpoint. I damn sure have no business doing a public info piece about it.  I dont know how much these writers know about Psychology, but I just do not think even a legitimate Dr in the field could ever make a true evaluation from a far watching a person who is constantly trying to sell themselves to the public eye, and say "Yep hes got a disorder" and feel they could maintain any true credibility with out they themselves feeling as if they have some sort of god like ability to do so.

[WDavE 332]

Don't leave out the other lie.

 

The 1.5 billion from China after riding with Diddy on Air Force 2 to China.

 

Then one day maybe we can also  look at Joe's brother. The one with no construction background that was named to the board of  Hillstone International which in just  6 short months later got 1.5 billion dollar contract to build affordable housing in Iraq.

 

The Hillstone International President at a stockholder meeting  proudly stated " Its good to have a Vice Presidents brother on the board.!"

 

No problem here though. Their all democrats!

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 hours ago, WDavE said:

Don't leave out the other lie.

 

The 1.5 billion from China after riding with Diddy on Air Force 2 to China.

 

Then one day maybe we can also  look at Joe's brother. The one with no construction background that was named to the board of  Hillstone International which in just  6 short months later got 1.5 billion dollar contract to build affordable housing in Iraq.

 

The Hillstone International President at a stockholder meeting  proudly stated " Its good to have a Vice Presidents brother on the board.!"

 

No problem here though. Their all democrats!

Trump folks concerned about family Trading on their name! Too much! Growing up I never dreamed people would be so incredibly hypocritical.

[homersapien 11,367]

8 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

   I feel like there is some sort of Irony that just makes me laugh here. Ive seen a lot of psychological evaluations on Trump like this.....Seems to me like It takes a whole lot of narcissism for one to feel as though they are so gifted that they can make a true psychological evaluation on a human being from a far.  ....With that, I too think Trumps a narcissist, then again....I dont think any politician can possibly win an any election with out a good bit of narcissism.  I mean they are salesmen selling themselves to the public to win their vote lol!!  ...But thats just me winging it from my armchair Psychologist viewpoint. I damn sure have no business doing a public info piece about it.  I dont know how much these writers know about Psychology, but I just do not think even a legitimate Dr in the field could ever make a true evaluation from a far watching a person who is constantly trying to sell themselves to the public eye, and say "Yep hes got a disorder" and feel they could maintain any true credibility with out they themselves feeling as if they have some sort of god like ability to do so.

How much do you know about Trump's history?

 

[homersapien 11,367]

8 hours ago, WDavE said:

Don't leave out the other lie.

 

The 1.5 billion from China after riding with Diddy on Air Force 2 to China.

 

Then one day maybe we can also  look at Joe's brother. The one with no construction background that was named to the board of  Hillstone International which in just  6 short months later got 1.5 billion dollar contract to build affordable housing in Iraq.

 

The Hillstone International President at a stockholder meeting  proudly stated " Its good to have a Vice Presidents brother on the board.!"

 

No problem here though. Their all democrats!

WTF are you talking about?  

[TexasTiger 12,835]

14 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

   I feel like there is some sort of Irony that just makes me laugh here. Ive seen a lot of psychological evaluations on Trump like this.....Seems to me like It takes a whole lot of narcissism for one to feel as though they are so gifted that they can make a true psychological evaluation on a human being from a far.  ....With that, I too think Trumps a narcissist, then again....I dont think any politician can possibly win an any election with out a good bit of narcissism.  I mean they are salesmen selling themselves to the public to win their vote lol!!  ...But thats just me winging it from my armchair Psychologist viewpoint. I damn sure have no business doing a public info piece about it.  I dont know how much these writers know about Psychology, but I just do not think even a legitimate Dr in the field could ever make a true evaluation from a far watching a person who is constantly trying to sell themselves to the public eye, and say "Yep hes got a disorder" and feel they could maintain any true credibility with out they themselves feeling as if they have some sort of god like ability to do so.

I think that may be true in cases with more limited public info, but if a psychologist has closely followed Trump, he’s given more insights into himself than the average patient will provide in the few sessions that typically lead to a diagnosis.

[SaturdayGT 719]

17 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I think that may be true in cases with more limited public info, but if a psychologist has closely followed Trump, he’s given more insights into himself than the average patient will provide in the few sessions that typically lead to a diagnosis.

I think the insights you and whats been given available to any Psychologist is tainted by the fact that hes a politician. Its pretty obvious that politicians are salesmen... They have to convince better than half the population that they are tough, fighting for the people... Yada yada,... They have to insight anger.. (angry voters = active voters) then convince them they are the only way to make things better..... In other words.... They have to be a "messiah"..... This is the job of a politician,.. Not an insight of who they are. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

14 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

I think the insights you and whats been given available to any Psychologist is tainted by the fact that hes a politician. Its pretty obvious that politicians are salesmen... They have to convince better than half the population that they are tough, fighting for the people... Yada yada,... They have to insight anger.. (angry voters = active voters) then convince them they are the only way to make things better..... In other words.... They have to be a "messiah"..... This is the job of a politician,.. Not an insight of who they are. 

Interesting. Strange. Disturbing. Off-base.

[SaturdayGT 719]

Noted. 

[homersapien 11,367]

12 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

I think the insights you and whats been given available to any Psychologist is tainted by the fact that hes a politician. Its pretty obvious that politicians are salesmen... They have to convince better than half the population that they are tough, fighting for the people... Yada yada,... They have to insight anger.. (angry voters = active voters) then convince them they are the only way to make things better..... In other words.... They have to be a "messiah"..... This is the job of a politician,.. Not an insight of who they are. 

The "diagnosis" of Trump's narcissism and psychopathy by experts goes far beyond his political speeches. 

His personality traits - the narcissistic self promotion and illusions of personal superiority, his misogyny, his lack of empathy for others and his total lack of ethics were evident way before he became president. They exhibited in his personal life and his business dealings.

Granted, some of these traits do tend to serve politicians in their profession, but that doesn't mean they weren't inherent in the man to start with.