Quote from: TECSHARE on December 22, 2019, 10:02:20 PM

Quote from: nutildah on December 22, 2019, 02:07:59 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 07:10:31 PM

That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a logical fallacy.

Just following in your footsteps, when you asked me if I knew more than a Harvard law professor. Then unironically, you went and argued with a Harvard law professor of a more senior ranking.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 07:10:31 PM

My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.

How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.

None of this has anything to do with anything. It's not a logical argument, just more barking worm tactics.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 21, 2019, 07:10:31 PM

Just for fun, have some precedent:

"(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225] that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.html

Not a precedent. As the house never voted on Nixon's articles of impeachment, no precedent could have possibly been set.

From House Resolution 755:

Quote

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html

Quote

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole scholar invited by Republicans to testify against impeachment at that hearing, also disagreed with Professor Feldman.

Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday, Professor Turley said. Article I, Section 2 says that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment. It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.html

Quote

Who Is Jonathan Turley? Republicans Lone Expert on Impeachment

The thought of resting your argument on an academic exercise will be finally laid to rest early next year. You're wrong now, and you'll be wrong then, too.

No, a Harvard law professor made an argument and I agree with him. Your entire argument rests on the premise that the man you agree with being more senior automatically makes him more correct, which is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, one that most children understand isn't a legitimate argument.

Quote from: nutildah on December 21, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

How can a senate try an impeachment if it didn't happen? We're not talking about a conviction by the senate -- that's not even part of what is being debated.

I know having a knob for a head makes thinking difficult, but this is a bit much. My logic is sound and this is the premise of the entire argument, you just turned it on its side and claimed it was something different. You claim he was impeached. If that is true then The Senate should have been transmitted the articles of impeachment to meet the constitutional standard of The Senate having sole authority to try impeachments. If the articles have not been transmitted then legally he is still not impeached. You can't have it both ways, these are exclusive concepts.

Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.

This is just idiotic trolling. You didn't even counter my arguments, you just cushioned your repeated, baseless assertions with personal attacks and called it a victory. You're wrong now, and you'll be wrong again after the articles are handed to the senate.