• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I think we all know it.

A

Amol S.

Platinum Member
The likelihood of Trump being convicted by Senate is 99.99%. 50 Democrat Senators + VP tie breaking vote, is majority.
 
Don't you need 2/3rds of the senate to convict?

Edit: There is a question of whether or not you need 2/3rds of all senators or 2/3rds of present sentors though.
 
I thought two thirds was for impeachment, and majority for conviction. Never mind you were right there is a requirement for two-thirds. Let's see here, Romney would support the Democrats... who else?
 
BlueWeasel said:
Yes, you do. Now those odds drop dramatically. In fact, one might say they could they could flip.
Click to expand...

IMO, 99.99% that he won't get convicted is optimistic. It's more like a million to one shot that he gets convicted.

Most of the liars are doubling down on the lie, and they are only getting more entrenched on that, and coming up with new rationalizations, talking points, excuses, doublethink...
 
Yup...50% + 1 to impeach, 2/3 majority to convict, 50% + 1 to strip him of his ability to hold future office IF he's convicted.
 
Phokus said:
Don't you need 2/3rds of the senate to convict?

Edit: There is a question of whether or not you need 2/3rds of all senators or 2/3rds of present sentors though.
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 3, which speaks to impeachment trials, states this exactly:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Click to expand...

Note it does NOT state 2/3 of the Senate's members or 2/3 of the Senate, but 2/3 of the Members PRESENT. That in itself means you just have to have 2/3 of a quorum, which would be 50 + 1 senators.

Read it for yourself....see if there's any mention of 2/3 of the full Senate. It doesn't.
https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec3


On the other hand, there are mentions of 2/3 of each Chamber's entire elected members being required to pass legislation, such as overriding a presidential veto. (Article 1, Section 7)

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
Click to expand...

U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States

Constitution of the United States
www.senate.gov www.senate.gov


To me, when one place is written "two thirds of members present" and another place is written "two thirds of that House," they cannot mean the same thing, which some are trying to do.
 
Last edited:
Meghan54 said:
Article 1, Section 3, which speaks to impeachment trials, states this exactly:



Note it does NOT state 2/3 of the Senate's members or 2/3 of the Senate, but 2/3 of the Members PRESENT. That in itself means you just have to have 2/3 of a quorum, which would be 50 + 1 senators.

Read it for yourself....see if there's any mention of 2/3 of the full Senate. It doesn't.
https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec3


On the other hand, there are mentions of 2/3 of each Chamber's entire elected members being required to pass legislation, such as overriding a presidential veto. (Article 1, Section 7)



U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States

Constitution of the United States
www.senate.gov www.senate.gov


To me, when one place is written "two thirds of members present" and another place is written "two thirds of that House," they cannot mean the same thing, which some are trying to do.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is, the Senate itself has agreed that a 2/3 supermajority vote is required to convict. I highly doubt that will change anytime soon.

"In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. "

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

www.senate.gov www.senate.gov
.
 
With Trump's fixation on being #1 in all things, the (R)'s should just oblige him one last time...make him the FIRST US president to be convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
 
BoomerD said:
No, it just means that if some of the Republicans choose to stay away, those missing merely lower the number needed to convict...
Click to expand...
And it may be the politically expedient move to ride the fence and hope for the best. They just technically can't be directly blamed cause they did not show up for the vote.
 
Amused said:
The fact of the matter is, the Senate itself has agreed that a 2/3 supermajority vote is required to convict. I highly doubt that will change anytime soon.

"In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. "

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

www.senate.gov www.senate.gov
.
Click to expand...

Nope...they didn't. Even in the appended Senate Rules of Impeachment March 2, 1868, it still says "two thirds of members present," not two thirds of the Senate membership or the entire Senate.
 
hal2kilo said:
And it may be the politically expedient move to ride the fence and hope for the best. They just technically can't be directly blamed cause they did not show up for the vote.
Click to expand...

And I think that's why the way it was written. The writers certainly could have written it to read exactly like the 2/3 requirement for overriding a Presidential veto, yet it was written differently and does not require the entire Senate to vote, else it'd state that pretty clearly like it does for veto overriding.
 
Meghan54 said:
Nope...they didn't. Even in the appended Senate Rules of Impeachment March 2, 1868, it still says "two thirds of members present," not two thirds of the Senate membership or the entire Senate.
Click to expand...

It requires a 2/3 vote of present members.

In no way shape or form is the Senate going to convict with a simple majority vote.

I'm sorry, but the legal theory that only 2/3 need be present and a simple majority vote will do is NOT a mainstream nor accepted opinion.

It will not hold water. The Senate operates under the rule that a 2/3 vote is needed to convict as that is how they have taken the language of the constitution.
 
Amused said:
It requires a 2/3 vote of present members.

In no way shape or form is the Senate going to convict with a simple majority vote.

I'm sorry, but the legal theory that only 2/3 need be present and a simple majority vote will do is NOT a mainstream nor accepted opinion.

It will not hold water. The Senate operates under the rule that a 2/3 vote is needed to convict as that is how they have taken the language of the constitution.
Click to expand...

When the Senate has a quorum, 51 members present, it's functionally the same as if all 100 are present. If 49 stay away (fat chance) then 35 Senators would be a 2/3 majority. It won't happen. A few Repubs might not show rather than vote either way.
 
Jhhnn said:
When the Senate has a quorum, 51 members present, it's functionally the same as if all 100 are present. If 49 stay away (fat chance) then 35 Senators would be a 2/3 majority. It won't happen. A few Repubs might not show rather than vote either way.
Click to expand...

Yes, understood. But they need a 3/4 vote of present members.

Not 3/4 of the chamber present and a simple majority vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top