So, what you are saying is, if the Senate refuses to convict or even try a President that YOU feel is guilty of “High Crimes and misdemeanors” (although its not your preference), killing the President of the United States is a perfectly acceptable way of removing them from office?
Wow, just wow.
Mangosteen, did you read k9bfriender’s post that you quoted there?
I can’t speak for k9bfriender, but I think you need to read his post more carefully, to me he is saying that the remedies for compelling the Senate to hold a trial following an impeachment is to either vote them all out of office, or launch an armed rebellion. Nowhere is he implying the death penalty for the impeached individual.
Yes, he said he vastly preferred ballots, but a gun would be a way to remedy the situation.
How do you interpret “by gun”?
Thank you for your interpretation of “by gun”. I didn’t read it that way. This is why I asked the question. And it was a question, not any kind of accusation.
While nothing in the constitution appears to require the Senate to hold an impeachment trial, the Senate’s own rules do require it to conduct a trial when it receives articles of impeachment from the House:
Of course, the Senate could change these rules, but IIRC it requires a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture (i.e., a filibuster could be used to block such a change.)
He said that a gun would be a remedy to the situation. He never said that it would be an acceptable remedy, and in fact strongly implied that it would not be.
So you were just asking questions and thing it’s OK to murder toddlers? Wow, just wow.
Moderator Action
This has turned into a bit of a political debate. Since the OP has been answered factually probably about as well as it can be, I think the OP will be best served by moving this to GD instead of trying to steer this thread back into GQ territory.
Moving thread from GQ to GD.
I don’t believe there is any remedy if the Senate refuses to hold a trial, but on some level it’s a moot point, right?
If the Senate refuses to even hold a trial, then it’s all but a certainty nowhere near the 2/3rds required to convict existed. Take the end of the Nixon Presidency, Nixon only resigned when his impeachment and removal from office was a certainty. There had been enough support for the House to impeach Nixon much earlier in the crisis/scandal, the reason the Democratic controlled House didn’t impeach and send it to the Democratic controlled Senate, is they knew they didn’t have the 2/3rds votes to remove Nixon. But after months and enough information release, enough Republicans abandoned Nixon that they felt compelled to go tell him that if an impeachment trial were held, only 12-15 Senators would vote to acquit, meaning Republican Senatorial support for him had fallen below the level required to fight off impeachment. He resigned within like 24 hours of that meeting.
Imagine a scenario where just as much of the Senate still wanted Nixon gone, but say, the Senate majority leader was a personal ally of Nixon and didn’t want to see him impeached. In that context if he tried to block the Senate from conducting a trial, the Senate always allows for a majority leader to be overruled if he lacks an actual majority. It’s not often done because members of his party like to stay in his good graces, but it certainly can happen (in fact it’s more frequent that a Senate majority leader is overruled by a majority against his wishes than it is a House Speaker.)
Cloture is generally 60 votes, not 2/3.
That’s also how I interpreted it- “by the gun” meaning through violence, not literally by shooting any specific person.
It could be just the majority leader, not “The Senate”, who refuses to convene the proceedings. We know McConnell is capable of it, and that his caucus won’t make him do it anyway, if it’s in what they calculate to be their short-term partisan advantage. Of course, We The People have a remedy for that…
In Nixon’s time, there wasn’t all that much question about putting country before party. I don’t think you can say that today - many don’t even know what it means.
What’s good for [del]GM[/del] the GOP is good for the country!
I addressed this exact scenario in the post you’re quoting, the Senate Majority leader can be overruled on essentially any matter before the Senate. As a matter of practice/custom, it’s rare that members of his own party will overrule his judgment, but it can/does happen. If there were actually 66-70 odd Senators willing to vote for impeachment the majority leader would almost certainly be overruled and a trial would begin in the Senate.
You say that as if the views of 49 Democratic Senators would have any bearing on McConnell’s decision. It would take a majority of the Republicans, the only ones who count, to be willing to override him. And, the only way to do that is to replace him as leader, so it wouldn’t be just a procedural matter whose loss he could graciously accept (yeah, as if).
There is simply no person or institution that can compel the Senate (or the House) ever to do anything. A fact that they are illustrating all too well.
Although the 3 branches of government are supposedly co-equal, one (Congress) is more equal than the others. Only Congress can get rid of people in the other 2 branches. And that means they are pretty much untouchable, except by the voters.
Even if you want to argue that the Senate must hold a trial, the only place to take that argument is the Senate. The courts have zero jurisdiction over the Senate calendar. The Senate makes its own rules and the courts (federal and state) are explicitly prohibited from hauling in members of Congress to hold them to account for their official business.