Will they have jurisdiction over Citizen Trump?

[jimnyc]

Good question and analyzing. But as he also points out, will it matter? And being there is no appeal from an impeachment, that would be that.

---

Dershowitz: The Senate Can Not Legally Put Citizen Trump On Trial

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said that the Senate does not have the authority to convict President Trump for articles of impeachment after the end of his term in office, during a conversation on Maria Bartiromo's "Sunday Morning Futures" on FOX News.

"If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the power of the Congress to try ordinary citizens," Dershowitz said. "It is plainly unconstitutional."


ALAN DERSHOWITZ, FORMER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE TEAM MEMBER: It will be unconstitutional, but that probably won't bother the senators.

The Constitution is very clear. The subject, the object, the purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting precedent. And there are two precedents. One is very obvious. When President Nixon resigned in anticipation of being impeached and removed, there was no effort to impeach him after he left office. It was clear that the Senate had lost jurisdiction at that point.

The proponents cite another precedent. In 1876, there was a failed effort, a failed effort to remove the secretary of war. In an initial vote, the Senate voted close, in a close vote, that they did have jurisdiction to try somebody who had resigned.

But then, when it came to a vote on the merits, they lost, because 27 or so senators voted that they did not have jurisdiction. Those senators were right. There is no jurisdiction. You cannot put citizen Trump on trial. If you could do that, it would be a bill of attainder, number one, putting somebody on trial who was not a sitting president.

And, number two, the implications would be horrendous. It would mean that if, the Republicans came up with a terrific candidate, say, not Donald Trump, to run against President Biden in 2024, the Democrats could simply impeach him.

If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the power of the Congress to try ordinary citizens. It is plainly unconstitutional. And the Senate should not proceed with this unconstitutional act.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/19/dershowitz_the_senate_can_not_legally_put_citizen_ trump_on_trial.html

[Kathianne]

I don't think the Nixon case is applicable. He resigned and Ford near immediately pardoned him.

[gabosaurus]

It is certainly questionable. It may be legal, but it is certainly unwise. And a waste of time. ----------> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-trial-explainer/explainer-why-putting-trump-on-trial-in-the-u-s-senate-could-get-complicated-idUSKBN1YA14U

[icansayit]

YES Congress (the Dem Majority) can Impeach a Sitting President. No question. But, once he becomes just another CITIZEN. NO!

Pelosi and Schumer, with all the other IDIOTS who hate Trump....KNOW IT!

Everything they try to do is only for SHOW. To prove to their EQUALLY IDIOTIC followers that THEY ALSO HATE TRUMP so much....The rest of the Country...BE DAMNED!

Besides...if you think about the way Trump has PLAYED all of them for years.

What makes any of the IDIOTS think he will want to RUN again...other than Hatred???

He's gonna have more power as a Civilian now. Unlimited by Congress and only controlled by THE CONSTITUTION they all hate as well.

[fj1200]

Good question and analyzing. But as he also points out, will it matter? And being there is no appeal from an impeachment, that would be that.

---

Dershowitz: The Senate Can Not Legally Put Citizen Trump On Trial

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said that the Senate does not have the authority to convict President Trump for articles of impeachment after the end of his term in office, during a conversation on Maria Bartiromo's "Sunday Morning Futures" on FOX News.

"If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the power of the Congress to try ordinary citizens," Dershowitz said. "It is plainly unconstitutional."



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/19/dershowitz_the_senate_can_not_legally_put_citizen_ trump_on_trial.html

I think there's a flaw in the argument. A former president is not an "ordinary citizen" in the manner of actual ordinary citizens and the actual offense would be for actions taken while holding the position of POTUS. Just because they might try him doesn't mean that they would be able to impeach a future candidate because they have not been "POTUS, VPOTUS, or civil officers."

I think there are good arguments against but I'm not sure this is one of them.

[icansayit]

I think there's a flaw in the argument. A former president is not an "ordinary citizen" in the manner of actual ordinary citizens and the actual offense would be for actions taken while holding the position of POTUS. Just because they might try him doesn't mean that they would be able to impeach a future candidate because they have not been "POTUS, VPOTUS, or civil officers."

I think there are good arguments against but I'm not sure this is one of them.

And I know. I am not smarter about the law than a Harvard Law Professor. The Constitution works for me.

[fj1200]

And I know. I am not smarter about the law than a Harvard Law Professor. The Constitution works for me.

I'm certain I'm smarter than some Harvard law professors and I'm sure there's one or twenty at Harvard that disagree with Dershowitz. Plus I didn't see where he was a Con Law professor. But I am fully prepared to be wrong on this matter.

But, fully agreed on the Constitution. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And I know. I am not smarter about the law than a Harvard Law Professor. The Constitution works for me.

Dershowitz is absolutely right. Matters not what other biased lawyers may say about his points cited.
What matters is what the SCOTUS would say.
I do not think they would dare disagree with his reasoning.
And yes, If the lousy treasonous vermin called dems have their totally unconstitutional way - I see this going to the Supreme Court.
I willing to bet Mark Levin agrees with Dershowitz and he is an authority on the Constitution...-Tyr


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin#Early_life_and_education

Mark Levin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For his show, see The Mark Levin Show.
For other people named Mark Levin or Mark Levine, see Mark Levine.
Not to be confused with Mike Levin.
Mark Levin
Mark Levin by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
Levin in December 2018
Born Mark Reed Levin
September 21, 1957 (age 63)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Alma mater
Temple University (BA)
Temple Law School (JD)
Awards National Radio Hall of Fame
Career
Show The Mark Levin Show
Station(s) WABC, WMAL-FM, + 398 others[1]
Network Westwood One
Time slot 6:00–9:00 p.m. ET Monday-Friday[2][1]
Show Life, Liberty & Levin
Station(s) Fox News, Fox Nation
Time slot 10:00–11:00 p.m. ET Sundays
Style
Conservative talk radio
TV talk show
LevinTV video on BlazeTV
[3]
Country United States
Website MarkLevinShow.com
This article is part of a series on
Conservatism in
the United States
Schools[show]
Principles[show]
History[show]
People[show]
Parties[show]
Think tanks[show]
Other organizations[show]
Media[show]
Variants and movements[show]
See also[show]
DodgerBlue flag waving.svg Conservatism portal
vte
Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, and radio personality. He is the host of syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show, as well as Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is the former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a New York Times best-selling author of seven books, and contributes commentary to media outlets such as National Review Online. Since 2015, Levin has been editor-in-chief of the Conservative Review[4] and is known for his incendiary commentary.[5]

He has been described as "right-wing" by The New York Times, CNN, and Politico.[6][7][8] He is known for his incendiary criticisms of Democrats and encouragement of primary challenges to congressional Republicans that he considers to be "Republican In Name Only" (RINO). He endorsed Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican presidential primary and declared himself "Never Trump", but reluctantly endorsed Donald Trump after Trump won the Republican nomination.[9] Since the start of the Trump presidency, Levin's commentary has become strongly pro-Trump.[10]


Contents
1 Early life and education
2 Legal and political career
3 Radio broadcasting
4 Television shows
5 Writer
6 Political views
6.1 Views on politicians and other individuals
6.2 Sponsorship and conflicts of interest
6.3 President Obama
6.4 WMDs in Iraq
6.5 Donald Trump
6.5.1 Wiretap claim
6.5.2 "Deep State" conspiracy theories
6.5.3 Trump–Ukraine scandal
6.5.4 2020 election
7 References
8 External links
Early life and education
Mark Reed Levin, one of three boys, was born in Philadelphia to a Jewish family,[11] and grew up in Erdenheim as well as Elkins Park. His father, Jack E. Levin (1925–2018), was the author of several books.[12] He graduated from Cheltenham High School after three years in 1974.[13][14] Skipping his senior year of high school, Levin enrolled at Temple University Ambler and graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Political Science in 1977 at age 19.[14][15] Later in 1977, Levin won election to the Cheltenham school board on a platform of reducing property taxes.[14] In 1980, Levin earned a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.[16]

Legal and political career
Levin worked for Texas Instruments after law school.[14] Beginning in 1981, Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Levin began at ACTION, the federal agency that oversaw VISTA and other volunteer agencies, before serving as deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior. He ultimately became chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese.[17]

After leaving the Reagan administration, Levin practiced law in the private sector. In 1991, Levin joined public interest law firm Landmark Legal Foundation.[18][19][20][21] At Landmark, Levin served as director of legal policy and the foundation's Washington-based Center for Civil Rights before becoming president in 1997.[22][23][24] Under Levin's presidency, Landmark Legal filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in 2000 alleging that the National Education Association, the largest teachers' union in the U.S., did not disclose spending on political activity in Internal Revenue Service documentation.[25] Landmark Legal also filed similar complaints with the United States Department of Labor in 2002 regarding NEA and political activity; by 2006, the NEA and smaller American Federation of Teachers had filed new documents with the Labor Department revealing over $100 million combined in political action spending.[26]

Following Freedom of Information Act requests in August 2012 of documents that would show if Environmental Protection Agency officials sought to delay regulations until after the 2012 presidential election, federal judge Royce Lamberth ruled in 2015 that although Landmark Legal did not establish that the EPA acted in bad faith, the EPA either carelessly or intentionally neglected Landmark's FOIA request.[27] Lamberth previously ruled in 2013 that the EPA might have attempted to evade Landmark's FOIA request.[28]

In 2001 the American Conservative Union awarded Levin its Ronald Reagan Award for his work with Landmark Legal.[29][30] Politico reported in 2014 that Levin received a salary of more than $300,000 per year as president of the non-profit Landmark Legal Foundation, whose donors include the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and ExxonMobil.[31] In 2018, Levin stepped down as president of Landmark Legal but remained on its board of directors.[32]

Radio broadcasting

Levin speaks at the 2011 Defending the American Dream Conference hosted by Americans for Prosperity.
See also: The Mark Levin Show
Levin began his broadcasting career as a guest on conservative talk radio programs. For many years, he was a contributor of legal opinions to The Rush Limbaugh Show,[33] appearing more regularly as the Monica Lewinsky scandal developed. About this time Sean Hannity became aware of him, and he began to feature in Hannity's radio show.[17] Eventually Levin gained a radio slot of his own on WABC, initially on Sundays beginning in 2002, then in the timeslot following Hannity's program in 2003. Cumulus Media Networks began syndicating The Mark Levin Show nationally in 2006.[17][34][35]

Levin has participated in Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid families of fallen soldiers, and uses his radio program to promote aid to military families.[36] Levin is also involved with Move America Forward, a charity that sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.[37]

On February 11, 2016, Levin signed a ten-year contract extension with Westwood One, which will take his show through 2025, its 19th year.[38]

On November 16, 2018, he was inducted to the National Radio Hall of Fame.[39]

Television shows
Since 2014, Levin has been the founding editor-in-chief of Conservative Review, a multi-platform online television network that later merged with Glenn Beck's terrestrial network TheBlaze in 2018 to form Blaze Media. Programs airing on the network include Levin, Roaming Millennial, Truth Be Told, Allie, In the Woods with Phil, Kibbe on Liberty, Louder with Crowder, America Bolling, and more.

In November 2017, Fox News announced that it had signed Levin for a weekend show titled Life, Liberty & Levin to air on Sunday nights beginning in February 2018.[40] According to a pre-debut network news release, the program's intention was to explore "the fundamental values and principles undergirding American society, culture, politics, and current events, and their relevance to the nation's future and everyday lives of citizens."[41]

Writer
Levin wrote the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench". Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'".[42] Slate magazine's Dahlia Lithwick wrote that "no serious scholar of the court or the Constitution, on the ideological left or right, is going to waste their time engaging Levin's arguments once they've read this book".[43]

Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish is a non-fiction work written by Levin in 2007 about his experience of rescuing a dog named Sprite from a local animal shelter.[44]

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released in 2009, and became a #1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks,[45] as well as No. 1 on Nielsen BookScan and No. 2 on Amazon.com's list of bestselling books of 2009.[46] The book includes discussion of issues Levin believes need to be addressed in the United States. In Liberty and Tyranny Levin repudiates the use of the term "progressive" to describe "modern Liberals" and instead argues a proper term should be "Statist". Liberty and Tyranny has sold over one million copies according to Threshold Editions, the book's publisher.[47] Andrew C. McCarthy, in The New Criterion, wrote, "Levin offers not so much a defense as a plan of attack" against "America's Leftist ascendancy".[48] Other reviewers critiqued the book as "analysis utterly useless in understanding more than half of the American political landscape" while opining that "Levin resorts to the same old misinformation to sell his brand of conservatism".[49][50]

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America was issued in 2012. In Ameritopia, Levin discusses the origins and development of both the modern day conservative and liberal political philosophies, the latter of which he refers to as "statist", through the works of some of the leading figures in American history.[51][52] Included are commentaries on works by Plato, Sir Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville.[53] Conor Friedersdorf's review, published in The Atlantic, criticized the text's argument that statism is based on utopianism,[53] and Carlin Romano, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, wrote that "Ameritopia is really Ameritastrophe. It's disastrously bad from beginning to end."[54]

In Levin's 2013 book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic he suggests eleven new Constitutional amendments. The book debuted at #1 on The New York Times Best Seller list.[55] Hans A. von Spakovsky of National Review Online called the book "required reading for conservative bloggers".[56] Ana Marie Cox, writing in The Guardian, said the book "contains some radical notions about a complete overhaul of the US constitution, but to debate the specifics of their merits is to ignore the larger insanity of the project" while noting "the ludicrousness of his specific 'fixes' and the near-impossibility of achieving them".[57] Also in The Washington Times, Richard W. Rahn wrote, "If The Liberty Amendments can help foster a national debate about which corrective actions, including constitutional amendments, are needed to increase liberty and prosperity, Mr. Levin will have performed a great national service".[58] Hoover Institution fellow David Davenport wrote in Forbes that Levin's book used "weak arguments".[59][60]

Levin's Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future was published in 2015,[61] and Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism in 2017.


Levin and Ted Cruz at the 2017 CPAC conference
Levin's Unfreedom of the Press, which was released on May 21, 2019, became the number one best-selling book on Amazon.com three days before its official release, as a result of pre-order sales. Unfreedom of the Press also became a New York Times #1 best-seller on June 6, 2019, in the combined print & e-book nonfiction and hardcover nonfiction categories.[62][63][64] Lloyd Green was critical of the book in The Guardian writing that the book "is not exactly fan fiction but it can get ahead of itself when discussing the special counsel's conclusions, ending up sounding like the 'fake news' the author and Trump both purport to abhor."[65] Annalisa Quinn, writing for NPR, stated: "the book is largely filler. Quotations and paraphrasing make up the majority of the book's central chapters. Lengthy and irrelevant block quotes from historians about, say, colonial printing practices... give the book the air of a padded student essay."[66] Quinn also wrote, "[Levin] conducts no interviews, presents no original research, and visits no newsrooms", and "When Levin does offer his own analysis, it can approach parody."[66] On June 8, 2019, Levin appeared on C-SPAN2's Book TV to discuss Unfreedom of the Press, "in which he argued that the press has lowered its standards in providing objective and trustworthy

[fj1200]

Levin. Also does not appear to be a Con Law professor.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I found this information..-Tyr

********

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-14/trump-struggles-to-build-legal-team-as-impeachment-trial-nears


Another reason for good lawyers remaining on the sidelines is the pressure being applied to law firms by interest groups such as the Lincoln Project, said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law professor at George Washington University Law School. Just days after the election was called for Biden, elite law firms such as Jones Day were being publicly berated for filing election challenges on behalf of Trump.

“The harassment and doxing of lawyers has been unprecedented,” Turley said. “What’s most concerning is that groups like the Lincoln Project have been funded heavily by lawyers who have supported the targeting of bar members for representing the president. It will be difficult for the president to assemble the legal team because of that intimidating environment.”


Trump has also made it harder for himself by suggesting Rudy Giuliani should be involved, but the controversial former New York mayor is unlikely to be on the president’s defense team, an administration official said. Giuliani is seen by lawyers as a toxic force and his conduct at the rally preceding the Capitol raid could be examined during an impeachment trial.


Who pays Trump’s legal bills could also be an issue. It’s unlikely the White House would since Trump would no longer be president, Turley said. Trump could seek reimbursement from the government, arguing that impeachment is an action against him in his official capacity, he said. “Congress would have to decide what to do about an anomaly of its own creation,” Turley said. “We are well into the land of the unknowns.”

Being the first of its kind, the impeachment case against Trump in other circumstances would be the sort of case constitutional law experts would be fighting each other to take up.

For one, Trump could challenge the fact that the House didn’t hold a hearing where the language and implications of the article of impeachment was deliberated before lawmakers lodged their votes. Then there’s the meaty question of whether the Senate has the authority to conduct the trial of a former president. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who normally would preside over an impeachment trial, may be called upon to render that decision.

“This would be considered a strong defense case,” Turley said. He said the issue of him joining a Trump team “has been raised” though he declined to talk about it further saying “my role has been as a noncombatant and that’s how I’d prefer it to stay.”

— With assistance by Josh Wingrove, and Billy House

[jimnyc]

I think there's a flaw in the argument. A former president is not an "ordinary citizen" in the manner of actual ordinary citizens and the actual offense would be for actions taken while holding the position of POTUS. Just because they might try him doesn't mean that they would be able to impeach a future candidate because they have not been "POTUS, VPOTUS, or civil officers."

I think there are good arguments against but I'm not sure this is one of them.

I thought the part in stating they might be able to impeach regular citizens in the future to prevent them from office was rather lame. But looking at the many legal minds analyzing this, what I keep coming back to in my head is many of them stating that the process to begin with is to remove a sitting president. And that if he is no longer sitting in the office that the trial is then no longer needed.

They have mainly stated their intent is to prevent him from any office in the future. I'm not sure if that goes along with an impeachment trial.

It's going to be an interesting ride. And like I said, they can vote as they see it and not much gonna change that, and it's not like you can appeal to the SC or anything. When it's done it's done.

[jimnyc]

I'm certain I'm smarter than some Harvard law professors and I'm sure there's one or twenty at Harvard that disagree with Dershowitz. Plus I didn't see where he was a Con Law professor. But I am fully prepared to be wrong on this matter.

But, fully agreed on the Constitution. :)

I'm not sure what specific course he took at Harvard, but don't think it was anything specific about the COTUS. Going forward he did write a lot about the COTUS and was of course printed in many official journals. Has also been invited around media circles to discuss constitutional issues. He is even referred to wherever he goes as an American lawyer known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law as it is on Wiki.

But I agree with you, I don't see where he was a professor of the COTUS, but he was a professor at Harvard for nearly 50 years!

And when it comes to the COTUS, there will probably be way more than even 20 differing with him.

That said, he is a great lawyer and a great legal mind all the way around.

[fj1200]

I thought the part in stating they might be able to impeach regular citizens in the future to prevent them from office was rather lame. But looking at the many legal minds analyzing this, what I keep coming back to in my head is many of them stating that the process to begin with is to remove a sitting president. And that if he is no longer sitting in the office that the trial is then no longer needed.

They have mainly stated their intent is to prevent him from any office in the future. I'm not sure if that goes along with an impeachment trial.

It's going to be an interesting ride. And like I said, they can vote as they see it and not much gonna change that, and it's not like you can appeal to the SC or anything. When it's done it's done.

I agree. They want to keep him from running again and I think strip some benefits from being ex-POTUS. From what I've read there could be a series of votes if this thing goes forward including the Senate even asking itself if it does have jurisdiction any more. Much of this is certainly new found territory where there are things that have happened in the past that might be similar but have never actually been decided.

But I'm in for the interesting ride as well.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure what specific course he took at Harvard, but don't think it was anything specific about the COTUS. Going forward he did write a lot about the COTUS and was of course printed in many official journals. Has also been invited around media circles to discuss constitutional issues. He is even referred to wherever he goes as an American lawyer known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law as it is on Wiki.

But I agree with you, I don't see where he was a professor of the COTUS, but he was a professor at Harvard for nearly 50 years!

And when it comes to the COTUS, there will probably be way more than even 20 differing with him.

That said, he is a great lawyer and a great legal mind all the way around.

I think he was a Criminal Law professor not to take anything away from his knowledge in other areas. I was watching a Ben Shapiro/YAF video awhile ago and someone asked him about a study of this or that. And he took issue with the study of this or that but his reasoning was interesting; He said that he didn't have to automatically accept an argument from authority (I think that's what it was) just because whoever did the study was a PhD of this or that. An argument isn't automatically valid because of who makes it; it could be either a good argument or a bad argument and it should be discussed on its merits.

[jimnyc]

I agree. They want to keep him from running again and I think strip some benefits from being ex-POTUS. From what I've read there could be a series of votes if this thing goes forward including the Senate even asking itself if it does have jurisdiction any more. Much of this is certainly new found territory where there are things that have happened in the past that might be similar but have never actually been decided.

But I'm in for the interesting ride as well.

Precedent.

I think many things emanating from 2020 will set more legal precedent than ever before. And more constitutional issues than ever before. Lawsuits will be being heard for years over so many issues.


I think he was a Criminal Law professor not to take anything away from his knowledge in other areas. I was watching a Ben Shapiro/YAF video awhile ago and someone asked him about a study of this or that. And he took issue with the study of this or that but his reasoning was interesting; He said that he didn't have to automatically accept an argument from authority (I think that's what it was) just because whoever did the study was a PhD of this or that. An argument isn't automatically valid because of who makes it; it could be either a good argument or a bad argument and it should be discussed on its merits.

Holy shit, listen up pete311 - see that, arguments shouldn't be rejected off the bat due to WHO wrote it or just as WHICH agency it came from - and the merits and facts within is what should be discussed. In a polite way, that's FJ's way of inadvertently telling you or others that use a single sentence to try and instantly end a discussion or reject a discussion because of who wrote it or where, through the thoughts of Alan Dershowitz, told you to STFU and either argue the facts within or STFU again. :thumb::coffee:

[icansayit]

That often missused word ASS UME has really gone viral now. Too many people who hate Trump....ASSUME to justify their own fears. That HE will even run again in 24. Once again...as he has for more than 4 years. HE'S PLAYING EVERYBODY like a fiddle.https://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsImage/20200310/50048321contentPhoto1.jpg