Can there be multiple trials in the Senate?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Was just wondering something.

If the House impeaches, the GOP Senate will have a trial.

I wonder if the Senate goes Democrat, can they then have a second trial on the same impeachment charges?

In other words, I see nothing in the Constitution that says double jeopardy is forbidden, and the Dems can resurrect the impeachment approved years ago and have another trial about it.

What's your opinion?

[bigheadfred]

The dems are doing what they want now. And it appears there will be no "years ago" since impeaching Trump is a never-ending story.

[Hoodat]

In other words, I see nothing in the Constitution that says double jeopardy is forbidden, and the Dems can resurrect the impeachment approved years ago and have another trial about it.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But then when has the Constitution ever stopped Democrats?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But then when has the Constitution ever stopped Democrats?

If that applies to a trial on removal from office, then the Senate needs to hold a trial.

[RetBobbyMI]

If that applies to a trial on removal from office, then the Senate needs to hold a trial.

First action upon trial is case dismissed. Move on.

The House could keep trying to impeach on whatever grounds they make up, but that will continue to demonstrate to voters their yellow backbone.

[Hoodat]

If that applies to a trial on removal from office, then the Senate needs to hold a trial.

Even better, table it until after the election due to lack of evidence.  Only when the Democrats are able to provide actual evidence that an offense has been committed (i.e. something other than the hypotheticals that they have offered so far) - only then will the process go forward.  So we can go though the next ten months listening to Democrats complain about how 'unfair' it is that they are required to come up with evidence before the Senate trial can begin.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But then when has the Constitution ever stopped Democrats?

That may be, but some are floating double jeopardy does not apply such as Obama's solicitor general.  Of course he is pushing his book.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/neal-katyal-impeach-trump-obama

[Hoodat]

That may be, but some are floating double jeopardy does not apply such as Obama's solicitor general.  Of course he is pushing his book.

I am willing to give them a do-over on impeachment as long as they are willing to give each State a do-over on ratifying the 16th and 17th Amendments.