Any way you slice it, the person to whom you’re replying completely misunderstood what ex post facto means.
-
-
-
That may well be, Matt. I don't claim to be a scholar or an attorney, and I'm regrettably not a member of the secret handshake society. I'm also not a Trump partisan. My sole concern is impeachment as an arrogation of power. Apologies if that opinion to too plebeian for you.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sounds like a bill of attainder
-
No, it really doesn’t, and you’re kind of silly for saying it does.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Surely the founders would not have intended to create period of “super immunity” for a president who could commit whatever crimes they could imagine as long as the senate could not logistically convene in time.
-
Surely the Founders did not mean for impeachment to be a super power. If an ex-president can face a Senate trial, in theory so can any citizen.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's a real stretch. What the Founders understood, as you surely know, is that inasmuch as government controls the governed, it is obliged to control itself (Fed. 51). Ergo, the Senate is not a Star Chamber that metes out impeachment at need as some sort of special power.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Anyone who uses "tendentious" in a sentence that misunderstands the concept of "ex post facto" is clearly "non compos mentis"
-
Really? And why is that? Don't like ten-cent words or something?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.