|
In response to
"I'm not sure who had the final call but it's the constitutional provision -- (link)"
by
Reagen
|
Right, but one of Trump's arguments is that it's unconstitutional because Roberts isn't presiding. They're arguing that as a separate argument (a due
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Feb 9 '21, 14:24
|
process argument). So it's either a completely superfluous argument (because they are using that language to argue that it implies that there can't be impeachment of a non-sitting president) or it's a separate argument and they're debating the meaning of that language. I'm curious which it is. And particularly curious if Roberts opted out based on that language (which would suggest he sees it as settled), or the Senate made the call. If it's the latter I would have asked him to preside anyway to avoid the due process argument. While the constitution doesn't require it (per its plain language), it doesn't explicitly prohibit it.
|
Responses:
|