Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (738849)	1/22/2021 1:19:11 PM
From: Real Man	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793782

But Congress writes all laws including the Constitution. So, courts can’t intervene. Somehow the constitutionality of these proceedings is also partisan. Why is that? Are all Democratic lawmakers lacking law degrees or are they too dumb to get the unconstitutionality of these proceedings? There is a valid argument that if they decide not to proceed than anyone who is put on trial can simply evade it by resigning. A private citizen after resignation. There is no way on earth Trump can be convicted given slim Democratic majority in the senate, so it’s pretty pointless. But I guess my point is that Congress can do whatever it wants to do and establish whether it is in fact constitutional to do what they are doing? Why were federal judges tried after resignation? No President was ever convicted, let alone an ex president. We don’t have a precedent. Why would case law even be meaningful in this case over which the courts have no jurisdiction? Congress makes laws. They can define whether this is constitutional or not. Can courts interpret the laws that Congress makes differently from Congress itself? See? I think we quickly come to a logical stalemate. The answer is to let congress decide whether this is constitutional or not, and if they decide that it is, conduct the proceedings.