The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth3 said:
That’s different than creatively interpret. There would be no rule change.
Click to expand...
They would “creatively interpret” the rules". IOW change the conventional interpretation.
dvdjs said:
the senators could vote to sustain such a ruling. Notably, this maneuver would require the senators to go on record with a vote to delay.
Click to expand...
IOW they have to vote to adopt this novel procedure.
That is how rules are changed.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. We can debate the appropriateness of its use in this instance, or in any instance, but it most certainly is not subversion.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. If used inappropriately it can be subversion. Lots of countries have subverted their political system by using trumped up charges to jail and even execute their political rivals.
Click to expand...
The Framers foresaw just such an event, which is why the trial takes place in the Senate and why it takes 2/3s of Senators to vote for removal. Again, I strongly urge everyone to read Federallist #65. Hamilton foresaw not only the necessity of for removal of a sitting President, but also the potentially fractious nature of such an action, and thus why there is a trial in the Senate, as opposed to the Supreme Court or some specially-empowered tribunal.

The system is functioning as it supposed to. There is no sedition, no abuse of power. There is partisanship, which was foreseen, and mechanisms to assure that a President cannot be removed unjustly. That it causes trouble for the Republicans and for Trump is really not an issue the Framers concerned themselves with. Removal of a President was made to be difficult, and only one Presidential impeachment has even come close; and that was of Andrew Johnson, who survived Senate trial by a single vote, during a much more fractious and fraught time, and where Johnson was in fact a Democrat who Lincoln had brought on board as his running mate as part of a National ticket, so he had few friends in either Republican and Democrat ranks.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
IOW they have to vote to adopt this novel procedure.
That is how rules are changed.
Click to expand...
The vote would be to sustain a ruling to delay a trial. It would not change any rules. It would allow for the lawful interpretation of “empowered to hold a trial” doesn’t necessarily mean required to. The rule that they are empowered would still stand.
 



" I’d like to read a couple of paragraphs of
what Justice Scalia said in that foreword.
In the days when I taught constitutional law, the University of Chicago
Law School had two constitutional courses. One was entitled Individual
Rights and Liberties and focused primarily upon the guarantees of the
Bill of Rights. The other (I forget the title of it) focused upon the
structural provisions of the Constitution, principally the separation of
powers and federalism. That was the course I taught—and I used to
refer to it as real constitutional law. The distinctive function of a
constitution, after all, is to constitute the political organs, the governing
structure of a state. Many of the personal protections against the state
taught in constitutional law courses here—restrictions upon unlawful
searches and seizures, for example—used to be taught in Europe as part
of administrative law. They were, to be sure, made part of our
Constitution (though most of them as an appendage to the original
document). And that was no doubt desired. But it is a mistake to think
that the Bill of Rights is the defining, or even the most important,
feature of American democracy. Virtually all the countries of the world
today have bills of rights. You would not feel your freedom secure in
most of them . . . ."https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/pilon-regent-law-review-v30n1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Lefties here, please answer this question.

How is exposing corruption among your potential political opponents “Immoral,” as stated by Christianity Today.

Since when did exposing immoral acts become an immoral act?
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
40.png
Elizabeth3:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope you are joking. Elizabeth’s post is the truth.
 
ProVobis said:
Not necessarily true. Especially if further articles can be discovered. The number of impeachments is not limited.
Click to expand...
What I mean is they went through the process and held a vote to impeach. The next move is to send them to the Senate. If they thought there was more to be discovered, then it should still be in the investigative phase. They were in such a rush to take it to a vote and now they are sitting on it in the hopes of finding more reasons to impeach? If this is such a solemn process as they claim, they sure are being quite sloppy about it.
 
Taking a position that a president’s out in the open actions violating his oath so as to invite foreign help in elections just happens to be worse that a split electorate on impeachment.
People don’t get that there was no choice but to take a stand.
 
Maximus1 said:
so as to invite foreign help in elections
Click to expand...
That’s the Dems spin on what happened. What actually happened had to do with investigating corruption and has nothing to do with an election. It just so happens the person being investigated is a political opponent but that doesn’t make Biden above the law. He’s not off limits if there is reason to believe he may have done something wrong. It’s within the President’s capacity to ask for an investigation.
 
With the number of companies and individuals involved in curruption in Ukraine, your position poses odds similar to like winning the lottery twice in a row. It is possible! That is your best case scenario.
It is absurd to think it was not for personal political gain. When it was an act Trump called for that would create personal political gain without question.
Remember the testimony was not really seeking an investigation. ( And the phone call did not mention Curruption in general at all)Instead really seeking a press conference announcing investigation of Trump’s political opponent was required for a face to face white house meeting. That is how Trump knows Comey’s announcement benefitted Trump with Hillary. When Trump called Comey brave on TV stump speeches the networks covered before the election.
It is not " opinion" it strains credibility beyond the breaking point to claim " coincidence"
It is up to you to base your opinion on the far fetched( Biden was just a coincidence). That is up to you. Like the inevitable excuse for voting for Trump that would be necessary after he shot someone on 5th. It would invariably be a virtuous shooting. This was Trump’s own point
 
Last edited:
7_Sorrows said:
I hope you are joking. Elizabeth’s post is the truth.
Click to expand...
Of course I am not joking. I understand you think Trump is the best thing since sliced bread. Please understand that many of us think he is far from it.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
It just so happens the person being investigated is a political opponent but that doesn’t make Biden above the law. He’s not off limits if there is reason to believe he may have done something wrong. It’s within the President’s capacity to ask for an investigation.
Click to expand...
ROFL, it certainly didn’t stop Obama, who it turns out lacked the supporting evidence to do such an investigation.
 
Obama was out of office when Trump personally, was being investigated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top