>>23624180 (lb)

What part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 is unclear to you? The reason for having the Chief Justice involved in the impeachment of a President, and only then, is so that two of the three branches of government are acting to counter the third.

>>23624224 (lb)

>what part of the constitution gave Biden the authoirty to ban chuch assembly and keep bars open

None. It was an unconstitutional act. The entire point of the Constitution is to establish the limits within which the Government is allowed to act. That does not mean the Government will not constantly attempt to overreach. Which is why the Judicial branch exists, as imperfect as it is.

You really should have paid attention better in civics class, assuming they still teach civics in school.

Your appeal to authority by claiming a security clearance is a newby move and not worth further comment.

>>23624289

Law enforcement is sworn to uphold the laws as passed, not pass judgment on them. I agree that creates a problem, provided we the citizens elect people who pass unconstitutional laws, which is the result of voting party line rather than on individuals, and then ignoring when politicians don't do what they say they will do.

>>23624284

>Wave the constitution all YOU want. That still got millions vaxxed, masked, and fired from jobs. If YOU havnt woke up to the fact that the constitution hasnt prevented ANYTHING that has occured in the past 8 years I have no help for YOU.

So apparently the solution you advocate is to discard the Constitution, which is exactly what the cabal would love to have occur. By doing so you proclaim your allegiance for all to see.

>>23624368

I don't see where we disagree on the fundamental proposition. I think it unlikely that such a bill would pass SCOTUS, but assuming it did law enforcement would be faced with a decision to either enforce the law, which has happened often enough in history, or resign which is what I would hope they would do. If not we are getting into Declaration of Independence territory.

>>23624416

Your histrionics betray you.

>>23624428

Do you dispute that Acticle 1, Section 2, Clause 5, delegates the power of impeachment solely to the House of Representatives?

Do you dispute that the House of Representatives is one of the two houses of the legislative branch?

Do you dispute that ergo only the legislative branch has the power of impeachment?

>>23624440

And so finally we come to it, name calling, the final refuge of the failed argument.

>>23624463

The trial is not the impeachment.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

>>23624476

>its now illegal to burn the American flag.

Wrong again.

a) An EO os not a law.

b) The EO does not call for making flag burning a crime, it calls for prosecution of any surrounding crimes.

Still name calling I see.

>>23624497

Nope. The impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. The trial adjudicates guilt as indicted. Yes Trump was impeached, by the house. He was not convicted in the Senate. The impeachment occurs entirely within the House. The trial occurs entirely within the Senate. Two separate acts. Both part of the process of removal from office.

>>23624538

>conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words” is constitutionally protected

That is an important qualification.

Still an EO is not a law. Yes it will go to SCOTUS as it should.

>>23624548

Nope. The courts serve as a check against overreach by the legislative and executive branches.

>>23624578

picrel

>burning the flag is Illegal

from

>>23624538

To be illegal requires a law.

>>23624607

:)

>>23624601

pic sauce: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal