The MILLION DOLLAR question in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939 (1 Viewer)

[johnwk]

.

With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States.


On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024

“This case concerns the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the events of January 6, 2021. Trump sought a stay of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision affirming the district court’s rejection of Trump’s presidential immunity defenses.”

The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”(my emphasis)

Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Mycroft]

.

With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States.


On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024



The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:





Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Trump wasn't impeached for any of the current cases.

 

[Rexedgar]

Trump wasn't impeached for any of the current cases.

What is the Judge Chutkan trial all about?

 

[Mycroft]

What is the Judge Chutkan trial all about?

If you have a point to make, just make it.

 

[johnwk]

Trump wasn't impeached for any of the current cases.

Well, thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. But what appears to have taken place - which is an intentional perversion of our Constitution's due process procedure to deal with a federal officer holding an office of public trust who violates that trust - those trying to undermine our Presidency have looked at specific charges the House impeached Trump under (H. RES. 24) and the Senate acquitted him of (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE), and shoehorned those specific charges into an indictment (D.C. indictment of Trump Filed, 08/01/23) by assigned any federal statutory criminal law that closely resembles a specific charge under which the House impeached, and the Senate acquitted, and then moved forward with re-trying the former President in spite of him already having been acquitted of them under the unique due process procedure in our Constitution, which was specifically adopted to deal with a President who commits acts which fall within the constitutional meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To confirm our founders intentionally provided a unique due process procedure to deal with a President who violates their office of public trust as found in the D.C. indictment of Trump, see: Impeachment and the Constitution

"While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74"

As it turns out, our founders intentionally adopted a unique due process procedure to deal with a president who has engaged in the very acts Trump was indicted for in the District of Columbia but acquitted of by the Senate. So, how can he be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

If you have a point to make, just make it.

the point was to ask you a question which you refused to answer, so again........

What is the Judge Chutkan trial all about?

 

[Rexedgar]

@Mycroft

I led you to the water, it’s up to you to drink…..

 

[Mycroft]

the point was to ask you a question which you refused to answer, so again........

I don't need comments from the peanut gallery.

You are dismissed.

 

[Mycroft]

@Mycroft

I led you to the water, it’s up to you to drink…..

This is a discussion forum. Discuss...or not.

You are dismissed.

 

[Peter]

This is a discussion forum. Discuss...or not.

You are dismissed.

So, you ask questions of others and demand answers that you then ignore but you absolutely refuse to answer any question with even slightly negative connotations about Trump?

Do you expect anyone on here to take you seriously while doing that?

 

[Mycroft]

So, you ask questions of others and demand answers that you then ignore but you absolutely refuse to answer any question with even slightly negative connotations about Trump?

Do you expect anyone on here to take you seriously while doing that?

Oh, quit your whining and crying.

Go join SNOWFLAKE.

You are dismissed.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I don't need comments from the peanut gallery.

You are dismissed.

This is a discussion forum. Discuss...or not.

You are dismissed.

Oh, quit your whining and crying.

Go join SNOWFLAKE.

You are dismissed.

What petulance sounds like

 

[Airyaman]

.

With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States.


On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024



The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:





Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

What point are you trying to make? Article I; Section 3, Clause 7 simply states that Congress (Senate in particular) only has the power to remove a president from office and disqualify the person from future office for impeached offenses. They cannot hold the impeached person legally responsible for impeached offenses beyond those actions, only the legal system can. If you're thinking this means the legal system cannot try an ex-president for other potential crimes without impeachment, that is not what this clause is stating.

 

[Peter]

Oh, quit your whining and crying.

Go join SNOWFLAKE.

You are dismissed.

Thus proving my point.
You don't want actuall debate, you simply want to lecture people and moan about how filthy libs are ruining the country.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

What point are you trying to make? Article I; Section 3, Clause 7 simply states that Congress (Senate in particular) only has the power to remove a president from office and disqualify the person from future office for impeached offenses. They cannot hold the impeached person legally responsible for impeached offenses beyond those actions, only the legal system can. If you're thinking this means the legal system cannot try an ex-president for other potential crimes, that is not what this clause is stating.

Looking for "justifications" to let Trump do as he pleases. Or pretzel logic.

 

[Peter]

What petulance sounds like

It's simply a complete inability to defend his position in regards to Trump.
He goes straight to name calling and dismissal and ignores any and all posts he doesn't like.

He's simply impossible to debate and you may as well try and debate a brick wall.

 

[johnwk]

What point are you trying to make? Article I; Section 3, Clause 7 simply states that Congress (Senate in particular) only has the power to remove a president from office and disqualify the person from future office for impeached offenses. They cannot hold the impeached person legally responsible for impeached offenses beyond those actions, only the legal system can. If you're thinking this means the legal system cannot try an ex-president for other potential crimes without impeachment, that is not what this clause is stating.

I believe my question was explicitly clear. How can a President be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

Part of our Constitutions due process system for holding a federal officer accountable for violating their office of public trust is Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So, Trump, having not been convicted by the Senate, and actually acquitted, the question remains: How can a President be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I believe my question was explicitly clear. How can a President be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

Part of our Constitutions due process system for holding a federal officer accountable for violating their office of public trust is Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7:



So, Trump, having not been convicted by the Senate, and actually acquitted, the question remains: How can a President be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

Is this about the failed autogolpe? Because Trump was not impeached for mishandling classified documents. There is no double jeopardy there.

 

[johnwk]

Is this about the failed autogolpe? Because Trump was not impeached for mishandling classified documents. There is no double jeopardy there.

It's about, Trump v. United States, No. 23-939

 

[Airyaman]

I believe my question was explicitly clear. How can a President be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

Part of our Constitutions due process system for holding a federal officer accountable for violating their office of public trust is Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7:



So, Trump, having not been convicted by the Senate, and actually acquitted, the question remains: How can a President be re-tried for acts he has already been acquitted of under our Constitution’s unique due process system for such situations?

Impeachment is not a legal process but a political one. It has no judicial standing or result, simply political ones. If a president commits crimes while in office then there is nothing in the Constitution that would bar him from being tried in a criminal court for said actions. This clause is telling you that very specifically.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Put simply, this clause says Congress can only remove a president and bar him from future office, but that is the extent of their powers.

 

[Blue Dog]

So according to this line of reasoning a sitting POTUS can murder a spouse and because an impeachment resulted in a failed Senate conviction, that same POTUS cannot be tried in the courts after leaving office.

That about accurate?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

So according to this line of reasoning a sitting POTUS can murder a spouse and because an impeachment resulted in a failed Senate conviction, that same POTUS cannot be tried in the courts after leaving office.

That about accurate?

That seems to be the argument. It’s hard to follow.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The Republican party was never for law and order. The Republican party was never pro-life. The Republican party was never about family values. The Republican party was never for education and the military and all the things that they said they were for.

Hell, they can't even live the Jesus parts of the Bible.

 

[Peter]

So according to this line of reasoning a sitting POTUS can murder a spouse and because an impeachment resulted in a failed Senate conviction, that same POTUS cannot be tried in the courts after leaving office.

That about accurate?

He can do all that during a live Presidential broadcast as well.
If his cronies fail to do anything then he's totally fine.

 

[Blue Dog]

The Senate’s power to convict and remove individuals from office, as well as to bar them from holding office in the future, does not overlap with criminal remedies for misconduct. Indeed, the unique nature of impeachment as a political remedy distinct from criminal proceedings ensures that the most powerful magistrates should be amenable to the law.10 Rather than serving to police violations of strictly criminal activity, impeachment is a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men for the abuse or violation of some public trust.11 Impeachable offenses are those that relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.12 Put another way, the purpose of impeachment is to protect the public interest, rather than impose a punitive measure on an individual.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C7-2/ALDE_00000701/