Is impeachment of a President biblically justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bibcat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is one thing you have written that I do agree with. And it had never been really discussed by historians. If you look at all of the revolutions which have occurred, they have almost, without fail, devolved into horrible violence and tyranny. Revolution just doesn’t work. But because we were across the Atlantic we were spared and the great experiment took hold.

I doubt of the likes of Jefferson (who had both very good and very bad points) would have maintained their sanity if they were fighting a localized government.
 
bibcat said:
The main reason the American Revolution didn’t become the bloody mess the French Revolution was is because the governing authorities were in London, thousands of miles away, separated by the Atlantic Ocean. In the French Revolution, the governing authorities were smack dab in Paris.
Click to expand...
In the eyes of the Holy See, the legitimate governing authorities were in Rome. Charles III had made an unsuccessful attempt to retake the crown in 1745. Among those in Rome supporting that effort was his brother and heir, Henry Stuart, the Cardinal Duke of York.

I do not know how that affected support for the Revolution, since those were generally condemned, but I doubt that there was much support for George III among the cardinals.
 
bibcat said:
In the French Revolution, the governing authorities were smack dab in Paris.
Click to expand...
The French Revolution isn’t my specialty, but I’m pretty sure Versailles was not in Paris. A mob actually dragged them out of Versailles into Paris since they thought that the royal family was simply ignorant of the situation and would take action upon seeing it for themselves. It all went downhill from there, especially when they tried to flee to Austria.
 
tafan2 said:
this is how our republic was set up. Unfortunately, there has been a long trend, starting with Wilson, of presidential power growing and growing.
Click to expand...
I agree that the sovereignty of Congress has ebbed over the last century toward the President. But for the purposes of the argument based on Romans, Congress is still the legitimate governing authority, and the president is the insurgent, trying to take still more of the sovereignty of the Congress away.
 
blackforest said:
I just sigh every time the issue comes up. The prospect of impeachment has arisen with Every. Single. President. Since George Bush, Sr. It’s how we express our dissatisfaction during these remarkably divisive times.
Click to expand...
Well, it is also possible that Presidents actually do abuse their power. Just because every President has done it doesn’t automatically mean that they’ve all kept the exercise of their office within the white lines.

What is unfortunate is that our political system is so polarized and defensive of party loyalties that the decide to impeach or not has become a very cynical consideration that is based on political advantage, rather than an honest question of whether tolerating some certain violation of the law or abuse of power gives tacit approval to a set of practices that are going to be damaging to the republic in the long run.

In other words, even if a President commits a crime that warrants impeachment and even removal, I wonder very much if that could now be done without it touching off a political firestorm that is even more destructive of the republic than just tolerating the crimes of elected officials. Well, then, once elected officials see that this is the prevailing sentiment, they’re going to take it as carte blanche to do whatever they please. It becomes a question of whether the patient is going to die of the original disease or die of complications arising from treatment that a healthy patient could tolerate but this patient can’t.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Biden’s position was completely in line with their government and our allies. Completely in line with US INTERESTS. Absolutely not illegal. That’s why they were not investigating and had no intention to until Trump made it clear it was what he wanted and they had to make Trump happy.
Self centered is not illegal but his enlisting a foreign leader with his office to serve himself makes him unfit
Click to expand...
No, Biden does not get to use elected office for personal benefit or the benefit of his family, even if he can make the argument that in doing so he did not harm or that he even advanced the interests of the United States.

The President also seems to suffer from this misconception. The Emoluments Clause reads, in part:
“…no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Not “may not accept any present unless the United States also benefits.” Not “may not accept any present that gets in the way of United States foreign policy.” The rule is that if you are in office, you may not accept personal favors from foreign powers or persons holding foreign power…PERIOD.
 
PetraG said:
No, Biden does not get to use elected office for personal benefit or the benefit of his family, even if he can make the argument that in doing so he did not harm or that he even advanced the interests of the United States.
Click to expand...
Right. That’s what one side of aisle will continue to point out, and the other side of the aisle will continue to remain silent on.
PetraG said:
The President also seems to suffer from this misconception. The Emoluments Clause reads, in part:
“…no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Not “may not accept any present unless the United States also benefits.” Not “may not accept any present that gets in the way of United States foreign policy.” The rule is that if you are in office, you may not accept personal favors from foreign powers or persons holding foreign power…PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Hold on a second, though. Is that what’s in play here, in terms of the impeachment? If so, what “present, emolument, office, or title” did Trump receive in this matter?

I think I could say that it was imprudent of him to ask what he asked, but I’m not seeing where he received any material gift as a result, right?

(And, part of me wants to think that Trump was being – as usual – crafty and machiavellian in this case: although his name will be besmirched by this scandal, it’s Biden who has more to lose. In fact, if I really want to put on the tinfoil hat, I might suggest that this could be a planned swan song: make a deal to bow out and to allow the GOP to put in its own candidate (without contentiously snubbing a sitting president) while at the same time, tarring the Dems and taking out their leading candidate! Ya gotta admit… it would make for a compelling movie plot!)
 
Nobody knows the outcome. I think he will be impeached.
They should not have produced that summary of the call. It was bad enough, but then they violated rules by hiding the real verbatim transcript.
Guess what!
That is coming out.
And
The first statement was hiding the truth.
What a collosal blunder.
 
bibcat said:
So scripture appears to imply that impeachment of a head of state is sinful.
Click to expand...
That is a stretch. It is proof-texting. Our authority likes not just with the president, but with the Congress, the Supreme Court, and with the Constitution.
 
Gorgias said:
I think I could say that it was imprudent of him to ask what he asked, but I’m not seeing where he received any material gift as a result, right?
Click to expand...
Well, asking them to dig up dirt on Biden is asking for material support for his re-election campaign, as it turns out. This isn’t asking the newly-elected President of Ukraine to do America a favor. It asking him to do the Trump campaign a favor, which Trump may think is the same thing but which the law does not.
 
What do you think “inquiry” means? Pelosi hasn’t called for an impeachment vote, but for looking into the whole thing. Which sounds to me like the very investigation you want.
 
Maximus1 said:
Nobody knows the outcome. I think he will be impeached.
They should not have produced that summary of the call. It was bad enough, but then they violated rules by hiding the real verbatim transcript.
Guess what!
That is coming out.
And
The first statement was hiding the truth.
What a collosal blunder.
Click to expand...
He might be impeached. He probably wouldn’t be removed, not with an election coming in the fall of 2020. I don’t think enough senators have the stomach for it. It is not as if Trump would ever resign in a million years! Considering the fate of Clinton’s accusers, like Gingrich, the members of the House may not have the stomach for more than some kind of a censure, either.
Usagi said:
What do you think “inquiry” means? Pelosi hasn’t called for an impeachment vote, but for looking into the whole thing. Which sounds to me like the very investigation you want.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that Pelosi had her hand forced. This is not the kind of thing that the public enjoys. If the inquiry uncovers something that will sway the undecided voters and turns them out against Trump or the GOP, that could help her party, I guess, but both parties have to be concerned about a lot of voters just staying home the next time they’re asked who they want to send to Washington.
 
Last edited:
bibcat said:
Romans 13:1-2

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

So scripture appears to imply that impeachment of a head of state is sinful. There’s a lot of discussion by our separated brethren over Romans 13 but little by Catholics. Opinions?
Click to expand...
I would argue, as did John Chrysostom (and other church fathers), that Romans 13:1-2 and the subsequent verses is referring to the general idea of governments:

”For there is no power,” he says, “but of God.” What say you? It may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be carried on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that; this, I say, is the work of God’s wisdom. Hence he does not say, “for there is no ruler but of God;” but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, “there is no power but of God. And the powers that be, are ordained of God.” Thus when a certain wise man says, “It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman” he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is He that joins together every man that comes to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God. But as He said Himself, “He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” And this is what that wise man meant to explain.

“Whoever rebels against the authority” is therefore referring to those who either ignore governments entirely or advocate the abolition of governments (anarchists).
 
This is nothing like Clinton’s case. They are obviously going to make out a case that days after Mueller testified, Trump went out and solicited campaign interference from a foreign government.
Thag is in the can.
Plus video of he and Rudy saying collusion is ok.
The man thinks nothing about putting us through this again.
Another blockbuster is coming!
They fabricated that phone call summary and lied about the fact they had a verbatim transcript.
They lied and violated Federal law mislabeling it to hide it. That came out today. Even Trump’s Senate allies got pissed.
Guess what? The summary is going to be misleading and/ or incomplete and /or hid the damning statements.
With a bullshot summary and damning transcript in hand, the deception will have 3x the impact. I expect that is a game changer to send the GOP looking for cover.
Thereafter, a full presentation in the Senate will make voting much more dangerous for Republicans seeking reelection.
Manufacturing a bogus summary, and publishing it, is the historical Trump blunder. Let’s see.
 
Last edited:
I dunno. The problem now is that so few people will bother to look at the evidence you are talking about, even though it is available, and will just conclude that the President is being persecuted.

How they can believe this when the man himself lies with such regularily and facility, I have no idea.

No, I don’t suppose any GOP Senators are looking forward to decide whether to zig or zag to dodge this bullet. It is almost as bad as deciding how brave to be about speaking up against McCarthy. Speaking up against Trump? Fail to speak out against him? If there is clear evidence against him but the GOP base doesn’t buy it?

If there really is evidence that outrages the GOP base to turn on him–and wow, that would take some kind of crime against apple pie, the flag and motherhood to make that happen–Trump could find Mar-a-Lago and his penthouses in Trump Tower are going to be his own personal San Clemente real quick, but if the base doesn’t turn on him…

Turning him out of office before his term expires could get extremely ugly, especially if it happens after the GOP primaries are going. It could get civil revolt ugly. In a country with over 300 million weapons and a lot of really hot rhetoric and disaffection from the government and from everybody in journalism, we’re closer than we might like to think. This is a very bad situation.

That whole scenario is why I think everyone in the Senate really hopes this is a revelation that can have its judgment made at the ballot box, not in the Senate. That is the better alternative, always, but especially right now.
 
Last edited:
Pelosi could not ignore this.
Trump can shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave, and they still support him. Bank on that! But it can be 2/3 to 1/3 easily.
This is a simple easy case compared to 400 pages of summary and a million pages of support. And the news and Democrats got out quick, and set the narrative.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top