Name:   phil - Subject:   JaneBlow gets it wrong. Again. Date:   10/23/2019 10:44:35 AM (updated 10/23/2019 10:45:12 AM)

As usual JaneBlow is wrong and Phil got it right

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/18/punishment-for-impeachment

Since ratification, four troublesome questions have arisen under this clause. The first was whether the Senate may impose the sanctions of removal and disqualification separately and, if so, how. The Senate claims that it may impose these sanctions by separate votes: (1) removal, involving the ouster of an official from the office he occupies at the time of his impeachment trial, and (2) disqualification barring the person from ever serving again in the federal government. In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively. For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify. The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition, although Article II, Section 4, mentions removal as following conviction. The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification.

So it takes two votes if you want to disqualify.  Persoanlly I think the dems are going to have a hard enough time on the 1st vote in the Senate - but I guess time will tell who is right.