• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Review confirms "startling" report on Trumps grasp of reality.

It is if the Constitutionality of the power being exercised is in question. White, Blackmun and Souter made that clear in their concurrence in Nixon v. United States.

No, that's not what they said.

First of all, Souter didn't join White's concurrence.

Second, neither concurrence says what you claim it does. This is 1L stuff.
 
The Supreme Court. Though I doubt anyone would challenge a mere impeachment. Democrats rendered that process pretty much meaningless anyway.

The Supreme Court has previously said impeachment is a political process outside of their jurisdiction. Are you expecting them
To change that precedent?
 
No, that's not what they said.

First of all, Souter didn't join White's concurrence.

Second, neither concurrence says what you claim it does.
It’s exactly what they said. Here’s an article that might make it easier to understand for you. You really should do deeper research and think about your position end to end before posting. I suspect you wouldn’t be making this argument if a Republican Congress impeached and removed Biden for no Constitutionally supported reason.
 
The Supreme Court has the power to determine if the exercise of that power is Constitutional. Congress isn’t granted the power to impeach a President for anything other than a high crime or misdemeanor.
Only CONGRESS determines what is a high crime or misdemeanor.. nobody else
 
Incorrect. There is no mechanism in the Constitution for removing an illegitimate President installed by electors determined by the State Legislature(s) to have been improperly appointed. The power of impeachment does not cover that. That power therefore rests with the States per the 10th Amendment and if the State Legislatures appoint new electors then they meet in December by statute, Congress is required by the 12th Amendment to count the votes, and the legitimate winner is the person with the most votes.

Joe Biden is a legitimate president, that election was already decided. Congress certified it.

Therefore your claim is invalid.
 
I’ll ask you the same question I posed to others. If Trump runs in 2024 and is illegitimately elected via some malware hanky panky but nobody finds out about it until after Congress counts and certifies - would you accept him as your President for four years? What you are arguing is that there is no mechanism to remove an illegitimate President unless he later commits a high crime or misdemeanor

Impeachment is the remedy for that scenario.

No "later" crime has to be committed. Congress decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, not you.
 
You really should do deeper research and think about your position end to end before posting.

I studied the case in law school.

I'm confident that I have a deeper understanding of the case from reading and understanding the actual decision, than I would from reading your Op-Ed.
 
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about what happens if it is found that a President is illegitimate. So 10th Amendment punts that to the States.

Punts it to the states to do what?

How does a state remove a president?
 
Joe Biden is a legitimate president, that election was already decided. Congress certified it.

Therefore your claim is invalid.
First of all, Congress doesn’t officially certify jack - that is purely symbolic. Their only role is to count the votes of the electors per the 12th Amendment. This isn’t even about Joe Biden per say. It’s about what happens if a State Legislature determines its electors were improperly appointed and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the President.
I studied the case in law school.

I'm confident that I have a deeper understanding of the case from reading and understanding the actual decision, than I would from reading your Op-Ed.
Maybe you should refresh your memory.

“If the Senate were to convict “upon a coin-toss,” Justice Souter added, “or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply ‘a bad guy,’ judicial interference might well be appropriate.”
“In such circumstances,” he wrote, “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.”
 
First of all, Congress doesn’t officially certify jack - that is purely symbolic.
No it isn't.

Their only only role is to count votes per the 12th Amendment. This isn’t even about Joe Biden per say. It’s about what happens if a State Legislature determines its electors were improperly appointed and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the President.
It doesn't matter what a state legislature does. They don't have any power to remove a sitting president.

If North Dakota says "Um actually the current president is Ozzy Ozzborne," that doesn't magically make it true. Nobody gives a shit.

All this "states decide" stuff you're whining about? It already happened. The states set laws that determine this. They followed those laws. The process is complete. Congress counted the electoral votes. You don't have a time machine. It's done. Joe Biden was elected and is therefore currently the president.

And no state has the power to remove a president.
 
Only CONGRESS determines what is a high crime or misdemeanor.. nobody else
So your argument is that if a Republican Congress decides being Joe Biden is a high crime or misdemeanor and decides to impeach and remove him from office for it there is no Constitutional remedy? The concurring opinions of three Justices in Nixon v. United States disagree.
 
Most of you, either by design or inadvertently, have lost track of what this is all about. Here is a review of what the OPer wrote.

As most of us already know, Trump is not well. It is confirmed he is telling associates he will be reinstalled as President this summer, but there is more:


The scale of Trump’s delusion is quite startling,” National Review senior writer Charles C.W. Cooke wrote on the magazine’s website


Cooke said “an array of different sources” confirmed a report earlier this week by New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman, who said on Twitter that Trump has been sharing the popular new QAnon talking point.

But Cooke went even further, saying Trump not only believes he’ll be put back into the Oval Office but also that he will be gifted with a Republican majority in the Senate, believing that two Democrats will be booted from Congress and replaced by the GOP candidates they defeated.
He cautioned conservatives against downplaying or dismissing the report.
“This is not merely an eccentric interpretation of the facts or an interesting foible, nor is it an irrelevant example of anguished post-presidency chatter,” he wrote. “It is a rejection of reality, a rejection of law, and, ultimately, a rejection of the entire system of American government.”

Trump, he wrote, is “so unmoored from the real world that it is hard to know where to begin in attempting to explain him.”

 
No it isn't.


It doesn't matter what a state legislature does. They don't have any power to remove a sitting president.

If North Dakota says "Um actually the current president is Ozzy Ozzborne," that doesn't magically make it true. Nobody gives a shit.

All this "states decide" stuff you're whining about? It already happened. The states set laws that determine this. They followed those laws. The process is complete. Congress counted the electoral votes. You don't have a time machine. It's done. Joe Biden was elected and is therefore currently the president.

And no state has the power to remove a president.
Yes it is. Read the 12th Amendment. It doesn’t say anything about Congress certifying anything. It says Congress counts the votes provided by the electors and whoever has the most votes wins. Period. Go back and read the thread re your other comments.
 
"If the Senate were to convict “upon a coin-toss,” Justice Souter added, “or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply ‘a bad guy,’ judicial interference might well be appropriate.”

But you're moving the goalposts. You claimed he said that the Court could overrule an impeachment if it found to be "unconstitutional" - not overrule an impeachment the Court found silly.
 
So your argument is that if a Republican Congress decides being Joe Biden is a high crime or misdemeanor and decides to impeach and remove him from office for it there is no Constitutional remedy? The concurring opinions of three Justices in Nixon v. United States disagree.

The unanimous decision in that case was that this is not a justicable case. The **** are you talking about?

You are correct, there is no constitutional remedy for impeachment.
 
Yes it is. Read the 12th Amendment. It doesn’t say anything about Congress certifying anything. It says Congress counts the votes provided by the electors and whoever has the most votes wins. Period. Go back and read the thread re your other comments.

Congress can't count votes unless those votes were cast by electors - and states can only appoint electors on election day.

A fact that has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and which you continue to dodge.
 
But you're moving the goalposts. You claimed he said that the Court could overrule an impeachment if it found to be "unconstitutional" - not overrule an impeachment the Court found silly.
I’m not moving any goal posts. The Constitution says the power of impeachment applies only to high crimes and misdemeanors. It has no Constitutional authority to impeach and remove a President for anything else.
 
I’m not moving any goal posts. The Constitution says the power of impeachment applies only to high crimes and misdemeanors. It has no Constitutional authority to impeach and remove a President for anything else.

Congress determines what that means.

Sole power of impeachment.
 
I’m not moving any goal posts. The Constitution says the power of impeachment applies only to high crimes and misdemeanors. It has no Constitutional authority to impeach and remove a President for anything else.

But it doesn't define "high crimes and misdemeanors" - and the Supreme Court has made it clear that high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.

You're misreading Souter, that's my point.
 
The unanimous decision in that case was that this is not a justicable case. The **** are you talking about?
Read the concurring opinions. The only unanimous opinion was that Nixon’s impeachment - specifically - was not justiciable. They did not preclude the possibility that a future impeachment would be and three of the justices explicitly said it was a distinct possibility.
 
Yes it is. Read the 12th Amendment. It doesn’t say anything about Congress certifying anything. It says Congress counts the votes provided by the electors and whoever has the most votes wins. Period. Go back and read the thread re your other comments.

They did count the votes. I don't understand what you are objecting to.
 
So your argument is that if a Republican Congress decides being Joe Biden is a high crime or misdemeanor and decides to impeach and remove him from office for it there is no Constitutional remedy? The concurring opinions of three Justices in Nixon v. United States disagree.
That’s exactly right..
Impeachment and removal is a political process, not a judicial process
 
Back
Top Bottom