I started this thread, but did not get the first topic going.
Topic One: Is it constitutional to have the trial in the Senate for a person whose term has ended?
Topic Two: Does the Impeachment have to be done in the House before the term of the person has ended?
Topic Three: Are there precedents such as civil officers that have been impeached and for some reason the person no longer is in office, (perhaps resigned.) where the Senate had the trial even though the person was no longer in office?
Below is what the US Constitution says:
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
News flash: This is it from the Framers who wrote the US Constitution.
One Little Paragraph.
Opinion:
Impeachment and Removal from Office: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
This is the first opinion listed by Google. That doesn't mean it is the best.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.2 This tool was inherited from English practice, in which Parliament impeached and convicted ministers and favorites of the Crown in a struggle for to rein in the Crown's power. Congress's power of impeachment is an important check on the executive and judicial branches, recognized by the Framers as a crucial tool for holding government officers accountable for violations of the law and abuses of power.3 Congress has most notably employed the impeachment tool against the President and federal judges, but all federal civil officers are subject to removal by impeachment.4 The practice of impeachment makes clear, however, that Members of Congress are not civil officers subject to impeachment and removal.5
While judicial precedents inform the effective substantive meaning of various provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is at bottom a unique political process largely unchecked by the judiciary. While the meaning of treason and bribery is relatively clear, the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors lacks a formal definition and has been fleshed out over time, in a manner perhaps analogous to the common law, through the practice of impeachments in the United States Congress.6 The type of behavior that qualifies as impeachable conduct, and the circumstances in which impeachment is an appropriate remedy for such actions, are thus determined by, among other things, competing political interests, changing institutional relationships among the three branches of government, and legislators' interaction with and accountability to the public.7 The weight of historical practice, rather than judicial precedent, is thus central to understanding the nature of impeachment in the United States.
End of opinion cited.
Freddie's comments:
In particular are there any opinions by distinguished attorneys or constitutional experts to give more weight to an opinion concerning a trial for Trump now Trump is out of office?
Are there any precedents where a person has been impeached, but resigned and the senate went ahead and had the trial anyway?
Precedents are extremely important. The phrase, A wall of separation of church and state." is a legal phrase even though those words are no where in the Constitution.
These words are in an opinion by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the US Constitution is said to ensure that there is a "wall between church and state." This is a precedent.
Therefore,
"A Wall between Church and State" is a
legal constitutional standard even though those actual
words are not in the Constitution.
Hopefully, someone will come forth with additional information on these topics, if there is any out there.
I will look some more later.
More very important topics as to why a trial is needed or not needed coming up soon!
