M
Maximus1
Guest
That’s funny Tyler Durgen
- Status
N
niceatheist
Guest
The Framers made impeachment a political process. A pseudo-judicial process has evolved over Congressional impeachments, but it is not a judicial process. Essentiallly, the Framers left it up to the House of Representatives to decide what qualifies as High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and that very much was intentional, as considerable debate went into the removing of Federal officials, including Federal judges and, yes, Presidents.niceatheist:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” clearly indicates an intent that the offenses be of a criminal sort, if not clearly prohibited acts. I doubt the framers intended it as a “second election” by congress if the majority doesn’t like the result of the first. That’s what we have now.
Such Federal offices are to a large extent removed from judicial fiat, and it’s in the hands of Congress to decide what constitutes impeachable offenses. Trying to redefine impeachment as some sort of judicial proceedings is really nothing more than a bit of handwaving.
If you don’t like the Constitution is written when it comes to impeachment, by all means, start a movement to have the Constitution amended to make the list of offenses much clearer. The Framers saw that as problematic, but maybe you have a better way.
M
macska
Guest
It was a good discussion today. The question was: “If you see someone walking into a room with a wet umbrella and raincoat, dripping all over the place, what other ‘evidence’ do you need that it is raining outside???” The answer was a huge grin. As it should be.
The trumpists try to play stupid (which they are NOT) and pretend that only mutually signed and notarized proclamation is the sufficient proof or evidence for a “quid pro quo”, or “collusion”?
N
niceatheist
Guest
They didn’t say anything at all in the Constitution. You can read Federalist No 65 for yourself to see the reasons behind the impeachment as it shows up in the Constitution:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp
As the Paper itself notes, the concept of impeachment comes from the British model, and that is the notion of impeachment which the Framers would have understood and sought to deal with in the Constitution. The 18th century definition of impeachment is far broader than the one Republicans are trying to conjure out of thin air.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ha! Dems said all the same things during the Clinton impeachment, including me. He did commit a crime, unlike Trump. But even then I thought it was chicken manure, and still do.
The raincoat analogy is more like “If you see a person walking into a room, what other “evidence” do you need that it is raining outside?”
Nobody requires a signed, notarized proclamation, but you would think at least one of the parties would have thought there was a quid pro quo, which neither did.
The raincoat analogy is more like “If you see a person walking into a room, what other “evidence” do you need that it is raining outside?”
Nobody requires a signed, notarized proclamation, but you would think at least one of the parties would have thought there was a quid pro quo, which neither did.
N
niceatheist
Guest
The impeachment hearings into Nixon established concretely that abuse of power is sufficient to impeach a President. We can debate all day whether Trump abused power or not, though I personally (for whatever it is worth) think there’s sufficient evidence to show that he attempted to extort Ukraine into investigating the Bidens using money earmarked by Congress (and therefore, not his to use as a bargaining chip).
It will be up to the House to decide if his actions rise to the level of impeachment, and it will be up to the Senate, should the House vote to impeach, to decide whether he did abuse his office. This is the way the Framers intended impeachment of Federal officials to work.
Alexander Hamilton makes it clear in Federalist No 65 that it is by no means a perfect system, but that judicial review would be even less desirable.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
They said "high crimes and “misdemeanors”, not “political opinions”
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
I find those who do not support Trump never discuss the abuse of the impeachment proceedings as we see them. They are argue letter of the law type things, as you have done. All of what you say is true, but does that makes its use in this manner a good thing? The framers assumed men of integrity would enact the rules they documented. Then Adam Schiff was born.
Interestingly, when the shoe is on the other foot, those same people arguing legalese complain loudly about the Senate voting rules on USSC nominees being changed, or Merrick Garland not being seated, they suddenly do not want to argue what is “technically legal.”
Interestingly, when the shoe is on the other foot, those same people arguing legalese complain loudly about the Senate voting rules on USSC nominees being changed, or Merrick Garland not being seated, they suddenly do not want to argue what is “technically legal.”
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Nixon committed crimes, necessitating his pardon by President Ford. Let’s not reinvent history.
There is absolutely no evidence that Trump extorted Ukraine. There was never an expression of quid pro quo by either party. But even if there had been, it was Ukraine’s treaty duty to investigate crimes committed by Americans there or affecting America, and Trump’s duty to urge them to do it.
The Dems decided in November 2016 to impeach, so that’s nothing new or interesting. They just couldn’t do it until they had a majority in the House.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” does not include “being prolife”, which is Trump’s real “crime” in the Dem mind. And I don’t think the FRamers thought so, since they never dreamed of abortion being legal someday.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I’m not going to get dragged into a debate on abortion. That isn’t the question before the House.
As to “high crimes and misdemeanors”, since the Constitution does not list what those are. The Framers explicitly did not create a list of impeachable offenses, and explicitly made deciding what actions by Federal officials rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” a political question, not a judicial question.
The Framers’ thoughts and intentions are there for us to see. No 65 explicitly references the British notion of impeachment.
Ironically, why the Constitution froze that notion of impeachment, impeachment has by and large fallen by the wayside in Britain itself. Removal of a PM is now purely for the House of Commons to decide via confidence (which is even more political than the Congress’s impeachment and removal powers). When there was talk of impeaching Boris Johnson, it was pretty quickly shot down because most British constitutional experts feel the power is, if not outright extinct, then sufficiently archaic that it really is hard to envision it being invoked.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s not the thread topic, but it’s the reason the thread topic exists.
So you think the Framers meant that “high crimes and misdemeanors” mean “political opposition”. They must have anticipated that elections are a sham, then.
And this isn’t Britain.
But I do think the Dems don’t really think Trump will be convicted in the Senate. They’re doing this to do political campaigning on the taxpayer’s dollar and to the neglect of the public’s business. Maybe voters won’t see that, but they should and I think most of them will.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, I think it’s the reason some folks don’t want to talk about Ukraine at all and turn it into a vast conspiracy. But like I said, I have absolutely no interest in debating abortion here. The hearings aren’t mentioning abortion, no one is talking about it, so it is irrelevant to this thread.niceatheist:
It’s not the thread topic, but it’s the reason the thread topic exists.
I think it’s clear the Framers had no desire to build a list of impeachable offenses into the Constitution, and quite explicitly left it to the House of Representatives to decide the question on a case by case basis.
Then if enough voters agree with you, the Democrats will be punished at the ballot box. And if voters don’t see that, then I guess that is the Republicans’ problem.
And the whole reason to bring up the 18th century British notion of impeachment is because one of the Framers himself, in Federalist No 65, explicitly brings up the British impeachment via the House of Commons as the justification of the way impeachment is framed in the Constitution. If you want to know the Framers’ intent, you can easily read their words. The removal of Federal officials, including the President, was a topic of some debate during the Convention, with some favoring the judicial route via the Supreme Court being responsible, but Hamilton makes it very clear why the Framers finally opted against that, and replicated the British model
K
KMC
Guest
Trump was voted in by citizens who supported his agenda, and he is delivering on his agenda. There are no “high crimes and misdemeanors” here. No quid pro quo (as stated by both Trump and Zelinsky). No “crimes” (as stated by several first hand witnesses, not by Eric C).
There is a way to remove a sitting president who does not commit high crimes and misdemeanors…its called “voting.”
But, actually, I kind of want the impeachment process to proceed. Because the trial will happen in the Senate, where Schiff has no authority to control who gets a subpoena. Expect to see Hunter Biden, Eric Ciaramella, Joe Biden, etc., get called to testify. Senate Democrats running for president will not be able to campaign while the trial takes place…which you can be assured that Mitch McConnell will drag out. It will make for great TV…and…the lasting narrative will be one that favors Trump. I will have to buy more popcorn.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Schiff will try the case in the Senate.
Trump was devistated today. From this point ON it will be difficult to deny the facts and keep your credibility.
I like your idea that you just deny it, and charges were dropped. That will empty the prisons.
Could take down the GOP. 70% THINK HE DID IT ALREADY
Trump was devistated today. From this point ON it will be difficult to deny the facts and keep your credibility.
I like your idea that you just deny it, and charges were dropped. That will empty the prisons.
Could take down the GOP. 70% THINK HE DID IT ALREADY
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Possibly I have not discussed it as much as some would want, but I have not been sparing in doing so.
But they did enunciate standards and they’re not “political differences”.
I recall reading that media support of the Dem candidate is worth about $90 billion in each election. This raises the ante, but this time we, the taxpayer are paying instead of the Dem media’s sponsors. Hopefully, voters will see that. The Dems should not be using peoples’ own money to fool them with.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I view bringing up abortion as a red herring.niceatheist:
Possibly I have not discussed it as much as some would want, but I have not been sparing in doing so.
No, they left the “high crimes and misdemeanors” undefined, specifically because they did not want to have a list of eligible offenses built into the Constitution. And because they, as Hamilton makes clear in No 65, had an 18th century view of impeachment, and further specifically did not feel it appropriate that Federal Officials be removed by the judiciary, but rather by Congress, left it to Congress to define those terms as Congress saw fit.
And?
R
Rau
Guest
I point out again you omit mention of the part of the testimony that is harmful to Mr Trump.
R
Rau
Guest
Wow. That is certainly a show of support!
R
Rau
Guest
No, these things are suggestive of character. I was not making a case to impeach. You’ve just pretended that was the issue.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not at all. It was one sentence, and I think people need to be righted in their perspective now and then. If Trump was not acting in a prolife way, the Dems wouldn’t be out to destroy him. They want him out of office because they can’t tolerate another prolife Supreme Court appointee and in the next five years there’s likely to be at least one.
To believe the rest of what you’re saying, the Framers would have had to disdain elections entirely, making ours a “stealth” parliamentary system in which the congressional majority makes and unmakes chief executives.
- Status