The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Divine3

Guest

Only two folks have read the article – At least that is what it is showing – I am going to read it now. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is a quote from the article –
–"In any case, since this impeachment has no hope of passing the Republican-controlled Senate, it appears to be more a political feint than an exercise in constitutional defense. As Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), current chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said back in 1991: ‘There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.’
 
Last edited:
Only got to para 2 when I read this:

“ There is a great deal to be mulled over here. From the day that Trump sinned grievously against the establishment by presuming to win the 2016 election”

The author kinda tells you where he’s going with that, and it’s nothing to do with the catholic faith!
 
Ok, I’ll bite.
Ignoring the author’s bias, his applying Catholic teachings to the rebellion seem fundamentally flawed in 2 aspects:
  1. he equates the impeachment to a rebellion against a ruler and then sees if this rebellion is justified. But the impeachment is not that. Impeachment is a normal means in our system of government of the legislative branch protecting us from overreach of the executive branch. One can support the impeachment or not, but it’s not a rebellion, it follows the law of the land.
  2. even if we disregard that problem and accept the impeachment as a rebellion, he then uses just war theory to say if it is just or not. I will have to go check the Summa, but IIRC, the criteria for a just war and the criteria for a just rebellion are not the same.
 
@Divine3

Very good article. Thanks for sharing it here. Very insightful!
 
As a follow up on my second point, I did a quick search in the Summa (I had rememberd that rebellion against government is covered by Aquinas). Aquinas does not use the word rebellion, he uses the term sedition, which he classifies as always sinful. However, he says the following:
A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government.
Click to expand...
Now, although the author uses the just war principle that good must outweigh the bad, Aquinas effectively does the same when addressing a rebellion against a tyrannical government. But I think the author does not make the case this test fails in the case of impeachment ( of course I also still consider impeachment not a form of rebellion against a government).
 
Last edited:
" Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority."

Sure sounds like what the Democrats have been up to since 2016.
 
No—this is trying to understand definitions of sedition. Do people think the very act of impeachment is seditious—or is it only in this case?
 
No. There were actual crimes committed by Clinton. His impeachment was legitimate.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
" Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority."

Sure sounds like what the Democrats have been up to since 2016.
Click to expand...
Also sounds like the eight years of Republican opposition and obstructionism when Obama was president, if we’re just applying that term without further considerations.

Anyway, we have a republican, constitutional government. Normal operations of the legislative branch and acting according to the articles of the Constitution isn’t seditious or rebellious.
 
Wesrock said:
Also sounds like the eight years of Republican opposition and obstructionism when Obama was president, if we’re just applying that term without further considerations.

Anyway, we have a republican, constitutional government. Normal operations of the legislative branch and acting according to the articles of the Constitution isn’t seditious or rebellious.
Click to expand...
The charges against Trump are completely overblown. Using the Constitution and twisting it’s purposes for purely political ends is seditious. They made up the Russia drama and when that didn’t work they kept grasping at straws to find “something” to charge him with. Now we have the nonsense of not turning it over to the Senate. Democrats play dirty and change the rules at will to serve their purpose.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
No. There were actual crimes committed by Clinton. His impeachment was legitimate.
Click to expand...
The same criteria apply. And the crimes are more serious. So I’m not sure why anyone would say the very process is somehow illegitimate or immoral—it’s the legal way our government acts to remove a corrupt leader.
 
Only Trump isn’t corrupt. It’s the Dems who are corrupt in trying to overturn an election with an outcome they don’t like. The charges against Trump may be serious if he actually did what they claim. He did not. It’s one thing to try to illegitimately smear a political opponent, but it’s not illegitimate to ask for an investigation when there is evidence of corruption when acting within the capacity of the office of President. It’s also not obstruction of justice to make use of the courts in your own defense. That’s just silly.
 
I’ll bet those on this thread who have made highly critical statements about the democrats are keen Trump supporters. And I’ll bet those who have made highly critical statements about Trump or the Republicans are keen Democrat supporters (though those are not so willing to reveal themselves on CAF I find).

Personally, I’d judge the more credible comments to come from Trump voters highly critical of his presidency, or Democrat voters critical of the moves to impeach.
 
Since Mr. Trump took office, he has whined about anyone who opposes anything he says or does, be they Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
No one is above the law.
But Mr. Trump seems to think that he is above the law.
Impeachment is about the rule of law.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
Only Trump isn’t corrupt. It’s the Dems who are corrupt in trying to overturn an election with an outcome they don’t like. The charges against Trump may be serious if he actually did what they claim. He did not.
Click to expand...
Since this statement flies in the face of actual facts, I’m guessing further discussion would be fruitless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top