On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 19:27:24 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:22:19 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:43:49 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:44:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:24:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:00:33 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:07:43 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:11:41 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:18:58 -0400, wrote:

It was that asshole Larry Summers along with Greenspan and Rubin that
got us into the housing mess in the first place so I am not sure
taking their advice was wise. They are the ones who convinced Clinton
to "unchain" Wall Street. (repealing most of the New Deal banking
regulations put in place after the previous depression).

I am also not sure the Constitution actually says the government can
just print trillions of dollars every time things get hard. Can you
cite that?

Interesting. You seem to sincerely care about the Constitution and what it
says, yet you had no use for the Constitution when the previous President
was being impeached and tried in the Senate. I guess that makes you
something of a fair weather Constitutional supporter.

I had little use for the way some democrats wanted to interpret parts
of the constitution while ignoring other parts.

Like you're doing right now?

I am looking at more than one phrase

No, you wanted to ignore the Constitution when it talked about House
impeachments and subsequent Senate trials. You wanted to toss the
impeachment trial into the Federal court system, remember? And now that you
agree with something that you think is supported by the Constitution,
you're all on board.

You can't expect to make stuff up and not have anyone notice.

How many examples of trials after the person left office can you come
up with? We have Belknap and Trump. (both failed on constitutional
grounds) Do you have another one?

Where are you with your effort to get the Constitution amended so that
impeachment trials can be handled by the Federal courts rather than the
Senate? Have you made progress?
No amendment necessary.
The constitution wrote the impeachment language to get around the
immunity the president has and it specifically states that once he is
out of office this could be pursued in federal court.
Trump was out of office when the senate trial started, what did they
hope to win? If they really had a case it should have been in court,
not a partisan political stunt with no real consequence.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you don't like what the Constitution says and
you don't think it should be followed, but you also don't think an
amendment is necessary. Clear as mud.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just an asshole like Rod
who always says no.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it just has to do with what the
constitution says. You cite me the part about senate trials when the
person is out of office. Even cite something that suggests they
thought about it. This was simply a way to remove a person from
office.