em đồng ý về khoản này, luật pháp mĩ thực sự
chưa nói rõ là việc đấy có sai hay ko. Ý kiến của bác này cũng chỉ là một, cái này phải để xem thượng viện sẽ quyết định tn
A post-presidential impeachment trial would be a fittingly bizarre coda to Trump’s norm-busting regime. But it’s not entirely unprecedented. In 1798, Tennessee Sen. William Blount conspired to give Britain control over parts of Florida and Louisiana; Blount was immediately expelled by the Senate. He was then impeached and tried. During his trial, Blount trial argued it was too late to impeach him, but the argument failed.
Likewise, President Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, tearfully resigned in 1876 to head off impeachment for corruption — or, to quote the actual articles of impeachment, “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” Yet the House proceeded to impeach Belknap anyway, and the Senate went on to try him “
after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.”
No court has definitively ruled on the matter of post-presidential impeachment. But while “impeachment is the exclusive method for removing a president from office,” as leading conservative scholar
Michael Paulsen points out, “nothing in the constitutional text literally limits impeachment to present officeholders.” In fact, as Brian Kalt of Michigan State University College of Law argued in
a 2001 article, “late impeachment was practiced in England and, unlike other aspects of English impeachment, was never explicitly ruled out in America. Indeed, some state constitutions made late impeachability explicit, or even required.”
www.foxnews.com
từ lúc e phong Thánh nựng Biden không thấy ca ngợi nữa.
