It's clearly an interpretive argument (unless I'm totally missing something in the Constitution text), but even then I don't know exactly what they're getting at.
The closest I can surmise is the idea that something legally occurs when the House impeaches, that is perhaps reverted by the Senate?
It's clearly an interpretive argument (unless I'm totally missing something in the Constitution text), but even then I don't know exactly what they're getting at.
The closest I can surmise is the idea that something legally occurs when the House impeaches, that is perhaps reverted by the Senate?
I am assuming so.