Is impeachment of a President biblically justified?

[Maximus1]

And I miss things occasionally. Comes with being a lawyer. Lol.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

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.

I read this as Church Authority, not the secular world.

 

[De_Maria]

The ones pressuring the Ukrainians are the Biden’s? That’s cute. …

It has nothing to do with whether the Bidens’ are president. It has to do with a breach of ethics and criminal activity. Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to drop an investigation against his son’s allegedly having stolen millions of dollars and forced them to hire him and pay him thousands of dollars monthly, in exchange for American aid.

 

[De_Maria]

And Trump out of his own mouth improperly pressures Ukraine to reopen that same investigation - this time because Biden is running against him.

The text of the conversation shows that he merely requested that the investigation which Biden improperly cut short, be re-opened. What’s improper about it?

Unlike Biden, he didn’t leverage American aid to force anyone to do anything.

 

[Maximus1]

It has to do with a self centered president’s hope to fight Biden on slimw

 

[tafan2]

Yes, this is how our republic was set up. Unfortunately, there has been a long trend, starting with Wilson, of presidential power growing and growing. Much of this is due to congress giving up too much of its power and time and time again giving the president added power. Its really a shame and it is the foremost danger to the Republic in my mind.
Just one example: how did we ever get to the point where we have a president who can wake up one morning and decide, all on his own, to slap significant tariffs on whoever he pleases. The power to tax was never intended to reside with the president.

Not many people even talk about this problem, but it is a huge problem.

 

[De_Maria]

Being self centered is not against the law.

And Biden’s activities in the Ukraine and China are slimy. They also stink. His actions while supposedly representing the US have brought great harm to the US while enriching his family tremendously. Using one’s governmental office for personal gain is called, graft.

noun
noun: graft
practices, especially bribery, used to secure illicit gains in politics or business; corruption.
“sweeping measures to curb official graft”

I’m pretty sure that forcing the Ukraine to stop investigating his son’s activities falls under that category. So does making billions personally while in the official capacity of representing the US with China.

 

[Maximus1]

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

 

[tafan2]

Talk about the self-confessedly corrupt pot calling the allegedly corrupt kettle black!

Your comment brings up an interesting thought. Trump always talks about cleaning the swamp and ending corruption. And I do believe we have had a problem with corruption (something tells me Chelsea Clinton getting $75K for one speech while her mother was Sec of State is not quite right). But at the same time Trump talks about ending corruption, he is admittedly corrupt. He bragged during the campaign about buying politicians.

The question: what is better/worse: politicians who brazenly flout corruption, or politicians who at least make a show about being non-corrupt and try to keep it in the shadows? My opinion is the former is worse, as it leads to a banana republic.

I am just sick of it all.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I do not like religion and politics. It is not a good thing. The Bible was written long before the United States Constitution was written.

 

[jrgmercado]

Our nation was founded on not only rebellion but on an armed rebellion. Let’s not forget that England has had several armed rebellions against the King ( Magna Carta Libertatum any one?)

 

[tafan2]

Our nation was founded on not only rebellion but on an armed rebellion.

What is the point of this comment? If one looks back, objectively, at the American Revolution and compares it with the Church’s definition of a just war, it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion that it was just. Indeed, it was largely fought over taxes, and the American colonists had an advantages situation with regards to tariffs and taxes than English people living in England. It attempted control of American trade, routing it through England, was certainly ill advised on the part of the government of George III, but the motivation is understandable.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of (most of) the founding fathers, and I think the American Experiment was a great thing for mankind.
But we were lucky it did not devolve into a bloody mess like the French revolution (thanks to those founding fathers), lets not complacently go there again.

 

[bibcat]

And respected separated theologians (Catholic theologians tend not to bother with this) like John MacArthur have pointed out that the American Revolution was unjustified biblically. Personally, I believe that the American Civil War was America’s penance for the sin of revolt against the Crown. It was this bloody “cleansing” that made the USA biblically legitimate. Other separated theologians (e.g. Beverly LaHaye) have opined that the Civil War was God standing back (as he did with Job long ago) and allowing Satan to almost destroy the USA for the sin of slavery. Who can tell?

 

[bibcat]

Maybe it’s Natural Law manifesting itself. After all, throughout most of history, and all of the time the Bible was transcribed, the governing authority was one or very few people at most. Parliamentary supremacy is something relatively new.

 

[bibcat]

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.

 

[Gorgias]

I read this as Church Authority, not the secular world.

Actually, he is talking about civil authorities.

In verse 4, he talks about “bearing the sword”. More clearly, take a look at verse 6: “[t]his is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.”

In fact, scholars propose that the whole point of the passage is to address the “tax” situation (there was a scandal in Rome in the 50’s A.D., surrounding corruption in the collection of taxes). If that’s the situation at the time that Paul is writing the letter, this whole notion about being a good secular citizen might have been meant to keep the Christians from getting a bad rap for advocating tax revolt. (Not, if this were true, that this helped at all.)

 

[PetraG]

I cannot believe that there is anyone who would actually argue that Heaven has set the President of the United States above the very law that gave him his office.

He has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and impeachment was clearly included among the powers of Congress, as a check on the possibility that the President would feel free to abuse his office by engaging in criminal or other serious illegal behaviors.

If the Constitution itself were in violation of the Bible, then it would have been sinful for a Christian to have run for President in the first place. It is the office of the President that holds the authority, not the individual elected to the office. If the one elected to it abuses the office, then in defense of the office that person may be held to account by Congress.

Therefore, our system is set up so that it is one governing authority correcting another. If the people were to rush the White House with pitchforks and torches, that would be a sinful rebellion. It is not rebellion for Congress to hold a President to account for breaking the law. Rather, it is among their powers as those who have been given governing authority to do so.

 

[PetraG]

He will certainly be impeached.

Nothing is certain, when it comes to impeachment. Why? Answer this question: Who came out worse from the impeachment of Bill Clinton: Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich?

Impeachment, unfortunately or not, has become primarily a matter of political gain and loss, not a matter of justice. In other words, members of Congress know that in the end it is more likely there will be political consequences aimed at them, rather than the accused. Members of Congress know they can be punished for disloyalty for giving even legitimate discipline to a member of their own party.

That is what history has taught the members of Congress that the people will make of an impeachment. We are in a time that is particularly polarized politically, and to be blunt we are in a time in which bad and even illegal means are excused if they lead to desired ends. If some members of Congress figure out how to be out of Washington for this whole exercise, I would hardly blame them. Discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.

In my opinion, when Bill Clinton got away with lying under oath so brazenly as he did, that showed that the system was broken. Once impeachment becomes that political, it hardly has a use short of removing a President who has literally committed a capital crime. (I wish I could be sure that even that would break through the extreme partisanship we are seeing, rather than bringing out defenses of the President that would seek to excuse him based on the precedent of Chappaquiddick. Even that would not surprise me, if threads like this are any indication.)

I think members of the House will count votes in the Senate and in their home districts before they vote to impeach. That’s why I don’t think it will happen. There is far much risk for too little likelihood of gain.

 

[blackforest]

And, according to Saint Paul, he is appointed by God.

No, the Church doesn’t support the theory of the Leviathan.

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.

 

[JanetF]

Not if its based on trumped up charges. And, personally, I don’t see that Trump has committed any impeachable offenses.

Which is why the system in place allows for a trial. In a true coup d’etat there would be no trial.