01-31-2021, 06:54 PM
(01-31-2021, 03:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.
No, it hasn't, but only because nobody with standing has ever brought the issue to SCOTUS. All the 'precedents' about holding trials after someone has left office are invalid, too, because in the grand total of three cases where it happened, none of them were convicted. One, in fact, was not convicted because the Senators decided they themselves could not be impeached.
Of course, Trump won't be convicted either which would make me wonder what the point is if I didn't already know it is a cynically partisan one to satiate the base's desire for revenge, keep Trump as the 'devil' that needs to be rallied against, and prevent Republicans from regrouping enough to take back congress in the midterms. Oh what awesome moral and unifying leadership we are seeing out of the DNC.
All arguments about whether or not it is constitutional are assertions of whether or not SCOTUS *would* rule it as unconstitutional. I'm not sure on the face of it that it would be, however there is another constitutional issue at play which is whether, if convicted, any move to disbar from future office could apply to *elected* positions as opposed to *appointed.* The will of the voter (or electors) is the ultimate check on government and it gets into incredibly murky territory to suggest that one branch of government could impose extra-constitutional requirements on office holders. The term used in the Constitution refers to 'office of honor, etc.' which are British Common Law terms for appointed positions.
Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.