Emoluments cases dismissed...

[JennH]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 6:32pm

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

This is what I was afraid of...because of what this will mean for the upcoming trial in the Senate. I get this is almost uncharted legal territory to attempt a trial to actually convict after he's left office, but maaannn even a good many legal scholars say that being a private citizen shouldn't have bearing, especially since there is precedent. Minor precedent bit still...I just want this megalomaniacs' feet to be held to the fire.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 6:43pm

I don't think it makes a difference regarding his Senate trial. They don't have 17 GOP members that will go against iq45's base because they are afraid of getting harassed and/or assassinated.

Their memories sure are short! 

[JennH]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 6:48pm

In other words, he ain't getting convicted by the senate either. Wonderful...

Legit question, any one care to remind me why they need 17 Republicans to convict rather than a simple majority? At least then there'd be a chance at conviction.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 6:53pm

Sure. In order to be impeached you need 2/3 majority in the House, which happened. To be convicted of impeachment, you need 2/3 Senate majority. If he was convicted, they could tack on an amendment saying he could never run for public office again. That only needs simply majority. 

But, they have forgotten about being terrorized a few weeks ago and most will vote no. 

 

[JennH]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 7:00pm

Woof, I learned a few things today. I though it was simple majority in the House as well, but never mind. Good grief, that said, even that seemed to happen by the skin of teeth. But...isn't the whole point of conviction TO keep him form hold office? Not something that happens after a conviction? If they made any sense...

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 7:23pm

You'd think so but no. They are doing something that has never been before. They are trying to impeach a guy who is no longer POTUS. A conviction in the Senate would mean removal from office. That's not really applicable here so I think it's more that the Democrats are doing this because it's really important to the majority of the country and their base. It's about the principal of the entire situation. And it's important for the future so when law students read about the last administration 100 years from now....well it's an example of what NOT to do and what we can NEVER do again. 

[JennH]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 7:32pm

Agreed. Now, supposedly there is precedent, but only minor. SPECIFICALLY no, it's never been done on the federal level let alone to a former president. But dammit I want this precedent set. 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 9:54pm

The Dems know that they can’t kick Trump out of office since he is no longer president. However, they stated in the articles of impeachment that, if he is convicted that he is no longer allowed to run for office. This would mean that he can’t run again in 2024 should he so choose. They can’t kick him out but they can’t let him in again.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/25/21 at 10:47pm

Incorrect. If the Senate votes to remove Trump, a majority of senators must also decide whether or not to ban him from running for president again in the future. Which, due to the fact that it's a simply majority vote, would happen.

Period.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 1/26/21 at 8:23am

I shouldn’t have just said the Democrats. I only did so since they are the majority in both the house and senate. However, while the constitution does say that two thirds of the senate must vote to impeach in order for it to be done, it doesn’t say, anywhere, how the voting should be done to prevent someone from no longer being able to run for any office. So, that is the uncharted territory we’re in right now.

If you want to look at this from an historical background, there have only been three times in history where, someone was impeached a barred from running for office at anytime going forward. However, in those three times, the person in question was a federal judge not a former president. If memory serves (and I apologize in advance if I am mistaken here) the voting system used in the those three cases I just mentioned was also a two thirds majority vote. That was done just because it was easier. But, like I said, as far as constitutional law is concerned, there’s nothing that states how voting should be done for banning those from holding office of any kind in the future. So, the question that is not clear in this case is how they will decide to come to that majority should they be voting Trump no longer being able to run for office in four years. 

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/26/21 at 10:48am

The GOP machine that put Trump in office is more than capable of keeping him safe from all accountability for the rest of his life.

 

Of course, he's been safe from accountability for all of his life.  

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/26/21 at 11:57am

As stated by many reputable news sites and reputable news anchors: Him never being able to run again is decided by a simple majority. It's a fact. 51 votes. I hope this clears things up.

[JennH]

Posted: 1/27/21 at 2:54pm

^^ That's what I found too...but it sounds like this have to convict first before they do that. And with the articles having just gone to the Senate, it's been a harsh reminder that this isn't likely to go well.

By the way, did more digging and found out to impeach in the House before it moves to the Senate is a simple majority vote, it's not 2/3. I only started searching because I suddenly recalled that when watching the live stream on what I believe was CNN, I didn't know exactly that the threshold was ( civics is a constant education), I do recall it being announced when it was reached and it was 217. The amount of votes garnered to impeach ended up being 232, but a 2/3 would have to be 290. There's breakdowns about this as well. 

You are absolutely correct about the Senate however....darn that 2/3.