Constitutional Question

[Angst]

In regular court, "montages" aren't admissible evidence

So I'll skip the rest of it for now, not because I'm ignoring it, but because I don't have any contrary to the matter at this point; I read it and understand where you're coming from. Some of the stuff I'm questioning but don't want to google points about it right now due to being on my way to bed (such as the fact that certain segments of the police force were intentionally restricted from the area, leading to the slow response).

However how many times do people need to be explained that this isn't regular court. Points like have entirely no place here. Appeals to regular judical process has absolutely no connection to this issue. It's like me yelling about medieval Ukranian agriculture if I'm served a bad soup.

Also, I'm unsure what your endgoal is. Let's say you understand that arguments for what regular court is don't apply, but you want to change that. Do you want to change the constitution? Your appeal to "standards" is so damn vague. "Standards" is a plus word thrown around to appeal to certain people, but have so often very little concrete bearing, as is here. Like, if we say we need standards... Impeachment is incredibly rare to begin with, and if you don't understand how it shows up as a tool when people like Trump are elected, idk.

What is your concrete idea of what impeachment should be like? Ideally getting around the fact that the presidential branch can legislate at will, technically being able to prevent impeachment from being legal due to just ruling something is legal.

Also, have no idea what you're getting at by """"putting quotation marks"""" around """"montages""""". Is it some kind of ironic distancing? You know what a montage is, right? It's not inherently good or bad by virtue of being a montage. It's literally just a video edited a certain way. Whether they're admissible or not have nothing to do with being """""""""""""""montages""""""""""""""" so I'm unsure how much you want to get out of it.

When you use quotation marks like this, it's usually to infer that something isn't something. Such as saying that they served me "soup", you infer it's not real soup, or has no place to be soup. But this was a montage, no? Whether it bears weight or not? So, uh, why the marks? Do you believe it's not a montage?

Like I'm just over here understanding you don't like the Kuleshov of it all, but his whole point was that montages were manipulative simply due to the power of editing. Montages are inherently manipulative, so it doesn't need quotation marks to support where you're coming from. Or what's your point? I'm just a bit wat.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

However how many times do people need to be explained that this isn't regular court. Points like have entirely no place here. Appeals to regular judical process has absolutely no connection to this issue. It's like me yelling about medieval Ukranian agriculture if I'm served a bad soup.

The judicial process was designed to be fair, and its rules are in place for a reason. That impeachment isn't beholden to those rules is not by itself a sufficient reason to ignore the reasons they are typically used.

Unless our goal is to make impeachment unfair deliberately, the reasons that montage footage aren't admissible in court should also give us pause when considering them for impeachment.

Also, I'm unsure what your endgoal is. Let's say you understand that arguments for what regular court is don't apply, but you want to change that. Do you want to change the constitution? Your appeal to "standards" is so damn vague. "Standards" is a plus word thrown around to appeal to certain people, but have so often very little concrete bearing, as is here.

If standards are vague, you don't have them.

I want to see a concrete list of conducts that are impeachable. Absent that, I want language that will apply the same punishment for the same action taken in the future no matter who in office takes it. If X and Y both do impeachable offense Z, X and Y then see the same consequences.

"Anything goes and you can impeach at will" IS a standard. I don't like it, but it means that any elected official can be ousted at sole discretion of the legislative branch for example. I consider that a bad standard, and would want to constrain their power. I'm open to discussion on what degree of constraint is appropriate.

What is your concrete idea of what impeachment should be like? Ideally getting around the fact that the presidential branch can legislate at will, technically being able to prevent impeachment from being legal due to just ruling something is legal.

First, we iron out what counts as impeachable. Then, we make it as close to a court proceeding as can be managed. The purpose of impeachment is for checks and balances between government branches, not a rejection of the utility of normal legal processes.

Or if you think court proceedings have some problems, alter those first so that the above applies.

Is it some kind of ironic distancing?

Not sure why I did that actually. Consider it a brain fart on my part and imagine I didn't include them. But montages aren't admissible in regular court and the reasons for that (misrepresenting what occurred) should still be applicable to impeachment proceedings if we care about making honest representations of evidence. Which is something we should care about.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The judicial process was designed to be fair, and its rules are in place for a reason. That impeachment isn't beholden to those rules is not by itself a sufficient reason to ignore the reasons they are typically used.

Unless our goal is to make impeachment unfair deliberately, the reasons that montage footage aren't admissible in court should also give us pause when considering them for impeachment.

Impeachment was designed to be political, not fair.

I want to see a concrete list of conducts that are impeachable. Absent that, I want language that will apply the same punishment for the same action taken in the future no matter who in office takes it. If X and Y both do impeachable offense Z, X and Y then see the same consequences.

"Anything goes and you can impeach at will" IS a standard. I don't like it, but it means that any elected official can be ousted at sole discretion of the legislative branch for example. I consider that a bad standard, and would want to constrain their power. I'm open to discussion on what degree of constraint is appropriate.

First, we iron out what counts as impeachable. Then, we make it as close to a court proceeding as can be managed. The purpose of impeachment is for checks and balances between government branches, not a rejection of the utility of normal legal processes.

Or if you think court proceedings have some problems, alter those first so that the above applies.

What you want and what the constitution says are very different. If you want to change it, there is a process for that. Impeachment has only one consequence and conviction has two. If impeached in the House, the case goes to the Senate. End of story. If convicted then removed from office and maybe prevented from holding office. Impeachment was deliberately divorced from the regular legal process because it serves a different purpose: it can remove a bad person from office and keep them out. Those are its designated punishments. Nothing else. The founders knew exactly what they were doing.

Whether or not you like it is irrelevant to what happens when invoked.

 

[amadeus]

The language of the constitution doesn't agree.

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 reading of the text does not lead me to infer there is any minimum prescribed punishment, just that Congress may do no more than removal and prohibition from office.

 

[Zardnaar]

Impeachment was designed to be political, not fair.

What you want and what the constitution says are very different. If you want to change it, there is a process for that. Impeachment has only one consequence and conviction has two. If impeached in the House, the case goes to the Senate. End of story. If convicted then removed from office and maybe prevented from holding office. Impeachment was deliberately divorced from the regular legal process because it serves a different purpose: it can remove a bad person from office and keep them out. Those are its designated punishments. Nothing else. The founders knew exactly what they were doing.

Whether or not you like it is irrelevant to what happens when invoked.

It's also very open ended. They can impeach you for the colour of your shoes.

It's basically a vote of no confidence. There's no other criminal implications by itself.

 

[Angst]

The judicial process was designed to be fair, and its rules are in place for a reason. That impeachment isn't beholden to those rules is not by itself a sufficient reason to ignore the reasons they are typically used.

Unless our goal is to make impeachment unfair deliberately, the reasons that montage footage aren't admissible in court should also give us pause when considering them for impeachment.



If standards are vague, you don't have them.

I want to see a concrete list of conducts that are impeachable. Absent that, I want language that will apply the same punishment for the same action taken in the future no matter who in office takes it. If X and Y both do impeachable offense Z, X and Y then see the same consequences.

"Anything goes and you can impeach at will" IS a standard. I don't like it, but it means that any elected official can be ousted at sole discretion of the legislative branch for example. I consider that a bad standard, and would want to constrain their power. I'm open to discussion on what degree of constraint is appropriate.



First, we iron out what counts as impeachable. Then, we make it as close to a court proceeding as can be managed. The purpose of impeachment is for checks and balances between government branches, not a rejection of the utility of normal legal processes.

Or if you think court proceedings have some problems, alter those first so that the above applies.

Ok so basically you want a list. To be honest, I don't particularly mind having impeachable conditions lined out like that. It would also make it more useable if things go awry. It's a restructuring of the US constitution, but to be honest, I think we're at a point where that's kind of needed anyways. And smarter people than me can figure out what the list would look like. But yes, that said, there is an argument too in keeping it political. I'd love for people to reiterate to me why it's useful for the process to be political, by the way, open invite: Why are the current impeachment rules good? The problems of the current system are:

- Possibility of slippery slope (too much impeachment is possible)
- Vague language may make it more difficult to actually claim something is impeachable (impeachment is hard to pull off when it's just a political vote)

Right?

Not sure why I did that actually. Consider it a brain fart on my part and imagine I didn't include them. But montages aren't admissible in regular court and the reasons for that (misrepresenting what occurred) should still be applicable to impeachment proceedings if we care about making honest representations of evidence. Which is something we should care about.

Ah ok! That makes much more sense, haha. I'm sorry about the long text thing, I just couldn't wrap my head around the function of the quotes.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I want to see a concrete list of conducts that are impeachable.

I don't think that adding more detail to what the constitution says helps.

 

[El_Machinae]

"High crimes and misdemeanours" are like porn, you know them when you see them.
I find it interesting that failing to peacefully transition power, and even disrupting the process, isn't obviously seen as 'misdemeanour-worthy'. Sure, whether it warrants conviction is an open question, but inciting a riot itself is something you don't want all political leaders doing in the last weeks of office while saying 'neener, neener, there's nothing you can do about it, because the trial will take place after January 6th'

 

[Angst]

"High crimes and misdemeanours" are like porn, you know them when you see them.
I find it interesting that failing to peacefully transition power, and even disrupting the process, isn't obviously seen as 'misdemeanour-worthy'. Sure, it whether it warrants conviction is an open question, but inciting a riot itself is something you don't want all political leaders doing in the last weeks of office while saying 'neener, neener, there's nothing you can do about it, because the trial will take place after January 6th'

To be fair, the impeachment was targeted specifically at the riots, and not at the delegitimization of the process the months before, no? Even if the riots were founded on the belief that the election was stolen, the claims of a false democratic process wasn't the primary argument of impeachment, was it?

And in this sense, I think the Dems gambled there was a higher probability of getting the impeachment done if it directly dealt with what had effectively threatened the lives of all of Congress. But the Reps didn't care. Failing to impeach over questioning the process would look really bad, I think, and the chances of impeachment were slim to begin with due to the Rep bloc.

 

[Birdjaguar]

To be fair, the impeachment was targeted specifically at the riots, and not at the delegitimization of the process the months before, no? Even if the riots were founded on the belief that the election was stolen, the claims of a false democratic process wasn't the primary argument of impeachment, was it?

And in this sense, I think the Dems gambled there was a higher probability of getting the impeachment done if it directly dealt with what had effectively threatened the lives of all of Congress. But the Reps didn't care. Failing to impeach over questioning the process would look really bad, I think, and the chances of impeachment were slim to begin with due to the Rep bloc.

To be a bit pedantic: the impeachment was quite successful; it was the conviction that failed.

 

[Angst]

To be a bit pedantic: the impeachment was quite successful; it was the conviction that failed.

Well, got me there.

 

[amadeus]

It’s really a matter of how the term is used. I think in the greater public consciousness, the term “impeachment” is associated with the conviction and removal from office rather than the legislative bringing of charges.

I’ve had this discussion before with people insisting Bill Clinton was not impeached because he served out his full term.

So was Bill Clinton impeached? Depends on who you ask.

 

[Cutlass]

People watching it have made that argument. Dates were altered, and a blue check mark was doctored in etc. Who's going to make an argument against this when the dog and pony show went about face, decided not to call witnesses after all, and was never a court proceeding in the first place?

So the same people who lied about a stolen election. Got it.

 

[Estebonrober]

@TheMeInTeam

There is no rules for impeachment, its about political will, there is already calls for Biden's impeachment. It is inevitable the GOP will try if they win enough seats. The consent of the governed is completely gone in the US. Right wing terror attacks will continue to rise, left wing seems to continue to play identity politics instead of eviscerating the insanity that is the GOP at this point.

Lets jsut clear this up. . . real quick. Fuick face for president loses an election by 7 million votes and then cries "no its all fraud they stole your country!" to his braindead mouth breathers who are so busy tying themselves into conspiracy pretzels they can't even see their own reflections anymore and so the morons storm the capitol after months of instigation (oh yea proud boys planned it before, the same proud boys who when he told them to stand back and stand by printed t-shirts (he did not correct their interpretation of his statement btw) and took it seriously @TheMeInTeam )? But no inciting an insurrection and trying to overthrow a proven fair election is not a crime? What crime my arse. Also impeaching a former official has already been done, so there is precedent, and it is done to prevent that official from holding office again in the future, but you know this you are jsut playing stupid because like most of your beliefs it is required for your beliefs to make sense.

Anyways bring on your purges of the "SoCIalisTs and CoMMuNists"! Try to make sure no one except the WASPs can vote and carry on my wayward bigot.

 

[Quintillus]

Clearly, if a person is impeached, then that person can also be tried in civil and/or criminal court. This is expressly stated in the Constitution.

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.

The question is whether an impeachment acquittal will still allow trial on the same charges. Case law seems to say yes, but I am not clear why. The argument that one is political and one is legal seems naive. The stronger argument seems to be that the Constitution excepts impeachment from double jeopardy. However, this would raise the question as to whether the exception is limited to convictions or general.

What do you think?

Changing the bolding to emphasize what I think is the key part to your question. Impeachment can only result in removal from office (et. al.). The party can still be held liable for offenses based on the legal code.

So let's say a hypothetical future president engages in a non-consensual relationship while in office. They could be impeached for it, and removed from office, and then also prosecuted for it according to the legal framework around non-consensual relationships in Washington, D.C., or wherever the relationship took place. We haven't started addressing the question at this point.

However, let's say that at the time of the relationship, we're in a war, and that president happens to also be extremely competent at their job. A contingent of the Senate argues, "don't change horses mid-stream", and the impeachment vote fails. Two years later, the war is over, the president loses re-election, and they're now a civilian.

The Senate never ruled (nor has the authority to rule) that the hypothetical president didn't commit a crime. They only ruled that politically, their actions (while perhaps criminal) did not warrant removal from office. Any protections from prosecution the president enjoyed while in office are now over, and they can be prosecuted for any criminal actions that may have occurred.

That's my reading of it, using an example that doesn't relate to recent current events. For what it's worth, my constitutional reading preferences lean towards the originalist, and some others have already referenced some of the founders' positions and influences on this.

---------

I will admit that originalism doesn't always match my policy preferences (e.g. Romneycare at a national level would be great, but is it really constitutional?), but I believe we should aspire to abide by it and use actual amendments where we want to change the scope of state/federal prerogative, even if that's sometimes the more difficult route.

In this case, I believe the originalist position on this question will hold up in court, unfortunately for Trump (and somewhat ironically, given his appointment of Gorsuch, an originalist, to the Supreme Court). Even if it doesn't, there are enough legally dubious actions he has taken that haven't been sent as charges of impeachment that he will be doing a good job of keeping lawyers employed for the next several years.

 

[mitsho]

A reason that hasn't been brought up for why the impeachment process doesn't follow the US American Standards for judicial trials* is time. A court proceeding just takes more time which is why the process of impeachment may be necessary.

(*And I'd like to add that these standards aren't the only ones and not necessarily the best)

While reading this thread with its focus on the legal side, I kept asking myself about morality. Even if the sceptics manage to delegitimise the impeachment here, it is telling that they have to go there with a Republican president. Twice. It is a moral failure that you didn't manage a peaceful transfer of power - irregardless of the impeachment results. The best thing one can say is that the reaction to the January 6 riots stayed within constitutional bounds which is not a given.

As pointed out above, impeachment is like a vote of no confidence. It's a flawed process, as these last three proceedings have shown. Which means it'd be time for constitutional reform. Clear this up, and maybe use that opportunity to include the amendments in the constitution itself and bring the whole document from 1776 into the 21st century. It's not coincidental that the US system is the democratic system least up to modern standards of democracy theory (f.e. compare it to the corner stones of the constitution of Israel which are from 1948). I'm sorry for having veered off, but sometimes it's useful to open up the viewpoints.

 

[Angst]

A reason that hasn't been brought up for why the impeachment process doesn't follow the US American Standards for judicial trials* is time. A court proceeding just takes more time which is why the process of impeachment may be necessary.

(*And I'd like to add that these standards aren't the only ones and not necessarily the best)

While reading this thread with its focus on the legal side, I kept asking myself about morality. Even if the sceptics manage to delegitimise the impeachment here, it is telling that they have to go there with a Republican president. Twice. It is a moral failure that you didn't manage a peaceful transfer of power - irregardless of the impeachment results. The best thing one can say is that the reaction to the January 6 riots stayed within constitutional bounds which is not a given.

As pointed out above, impeachment is like a vote of no confidence. It's a flawed process, as these last three proceedings have shown. Which means it'd be time for constitutional reform. Clear this up, and maybe use that opportunity to include the amendments in the constitution itself and bring the whole document from 1776 into the 21st century. It's not coincidental that the US system is the democratic system least up to modern standards of democracy theory (f.e. compare it to the corner stones of the constitution of Israel which are from 1948). I'm sorry for having veered off, but sometimes it's useful to open up the viewpoints.

It's not veering off to discuss constitutional reform. People that argue that the impeachment was unlawful or not following legal procedure often miss that it very much followed the impeachment process in the constitution. The process is constitutionally at-will. (Although yes, some people are now asking whether it's constitutional to impeach a former president from participating in politics again. It's a) a newer argument that basically gained traction after it became clear that impeachment-at-will is constitutional, and b) not the people and/or argument I'm talking about here.) Following that, they usually argue that it should be made constiutional, redesigned for this matter. Thing is that if you want some legal procedure here, not liking what impeachment fundamentally is, you're inherently arguing for constitutional reform.

Others want constitutional reform in order to easen impeachment when stuff like this happens, which includes you from what I can tell, recognizing that the vague language makes it rely on a potentially corrupt government. I don't think this is veering off either, as it again fundamentally has to do with the constitutionality of the process.

Also, just saying, the Danish constitution still claims the king is the executive branch. xD US is way ahead there. It's also a big reason why Danes (until they learn more about the US) are often big questionmarks as to why it's so important whether something is unconstitutional. When you're a high schooler and are learning about your own civics, it's kind of a headscratcher when other people believe in constitutions and the only one you know about is garbage.

 

[onejayhawk]

"High crimes and misdemeanours" are like porn, you know them when you see them.
I find it interesting that failing to peacefully transition power, and even disrupting the process, isn't obviously seen as 'misdemeanour-worthy'. Sure, whether it warrants conviction is an open question, but inciting a riot itself is something you don't want all political leaders doing in the last weeks of office while saying 'neener, neener, there's nothing you can do about it, because the trial will take place after January 6th'

There is substantial British law on what constitutes an impeachable offense. The Constitution also mentions treason and bribery. You cannot claim there is no guidance, but it is very dated.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is substantial British law on what constitutes an impeachable offense. The Constitution also mentions treason and bribery. You cannot claim there is no guidance, but it is very dated.

Two specifics, treason and bribery, and then an open door to whatever the House wants.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is substantial British law on what constitutes an impeachable offense. The Constitution also mentions treason and bribery. You cannot claim there is no guidance, but it is very dated.

Yeah, I recognize that the phrase 'misdemeanours' here is one that has Common Law behind it. But, it's not a complete definition.