Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Take This Impeachment And Shove It...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIn that case the Founders wouldn't have bothered with an impeachment clause. As the Judge in the Mcgahn case said, the President is not a King!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI still don't know who he is or why I should give a pair of fetid dingos about his opinion.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIn that case the Founders wouldn't have bothered with an impeachment clause. As the Judge in the Mcgahn case said, the President is not a King!
The fact that impeachment is an Article I power does not end the issue. It does not make Article II and III entities subordinate. When an Article II entity disputes the extent of an Article I power, the Article I entity does not get to say, "We win." An Article III entity resolves the conflict.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostYou agree with Judge Butthurt Napolitano and, inexplicably, Andy McCarthy. I'll go with Turley, Dersh, and a ton of others.
The fact that impeachment is an Article I power does not end the issue. It does not make Article II and III entities subordinate. When an Article II entity disputes the extent of an Article I power, the Article I entity does not get to say, "We win." An Article III entity resolves the conflict.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThey don't need to say we win, it's already determined. Just because the President defies a legal subpoena and takes it to the court (a delay tactic) doesn't make his defiance of it in the first place a legal action. It's obstruction unless there is a justified reason for defying it in the first place."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThey don't need to say we win, it's already determined. Just because the President defies a legal subpoena and takes it to the court (a delay tactic) doesn't make his defiance of it in the first place a legal action. It's obstruction unless there is a justified reason for defying it in the first place.
By your criteria here Obama was guilty of obstruction of Congress when he did the same thing Trump is doing appeal ask the Judicial branch to decide between his administration and congress. Do you really want to go there or will you admit that your leftist handlers are wrong here and finely think for youself.
The Founding Fathers created 3 Branches of Government just for this type of situation where 2 co equal branches disagree with each other on who is right.
Comment
-
Democrats are preparing for bipartisan opposition to impeachment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7a1_story.htmlSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostThe President has a right to ask the court if he has to for go his Executive Privilege going up to the highest court if he wants it is up to the congress to show just cause through out the whole appeal process. The House Democrats chose not to continue fighting the appeal they do not have the right to call it obstruction for the President to ask the THIRD BRANCH of the government rule on whether the legislative branch's reason for wanting the privileged information is enough to overturn the Executive branches privilege.
By your criteria here Obama was guilty of obstruction of Congress when he did the same thing Trump is doing appeal ask the Judicial branch to decide between his administration and congress. Do you really want to go there or will you admit that your leftist handlers are wrong here and finely think for youself.
The Founding Fathers created 3 Branches of Government just for this type of situation where 2 co equal branches disagree with each other on who is right.
Nixon v US stated unanimously that the sole power of impeachment means that it’s outside judicial review.
Another important point it raised was that impeachment is a check not just on the executive but also the judiciary.
It then follows:
How can the judiciary decide what can or can’t be done to a power that is designed to keep them in check?
Likewise how can executive privilege extend beyond the reach of this power?
They can’t, it’s unconstitutional and goes against the separation of powers according to this decision.
The word ‘sole’ in the constitution deliberately leaves all aspects of impeachment to house discretion. This means that the house defines the rules as well as what constitutes an impeachable offence and has the power to compel participation through subpoenas. Refusing the cooperate is clearly an obstruction.
What are the arguments claiming this impeachment to be illegal actually based on?
Comment
-
Since you mention Nixon, it's also worth pointing out that the courts ruled during the Nixon impeachment that a legislative committee can issue subpoenas when granted the authority to do so by their chamber. In an impeachment inquiry, this authority can only come from a House vote, which in this case never happened, so the House was limited to issuing non-binding demand letters which didn't even carry a threat for noncompliance, so the White House was right to contest them in court, and ironically, the House was right not to push back because they would have lost.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDemocrats are preparing for bipartisan opposition to impeachment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7a1_story.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwhen you are linking to a site with a paywall, please be nice and post an excerpt of what it says at least.
(It may not be a paywall when you visit, but it may be to others)The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwhen you are linking to a site with a paywall, please be nice and post an excerpt of what it says at least.
Anyway, here's the Breitbart version that references the WaPop article:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...eachment-vote/
Bade and DeBonis quote three senior House Democrat officials saying that there will be at least a half dozen Democrats who join with all Republicans to oppose impeaching President Trump, but a third senior Democrat aide told them there would probably be many more than just a half dozen defections.
Bade and DeBonis wrote:
Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.
[...]
Predictions about some defections come as a core group of centrists from districts Trump won in 2016 are having second thoughts. While many knew impeachment would never be popular in their GOP-leaning districts, some have been surprised that support hasn’t increased despite negative testimony about Trump from a series of blockbuster hearings last month. Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called ‘splitting the baby’: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI was able to read the whole article on my phone, so I didn't realize it was pay-walled...
Anyway, here's the Breitbart version that references the WaPop article:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...eachment-vote/
Bade and DeBonis quote three senior House Democrat officials saying that there will be at least a half dozen Democrats who join with all Republicans to oppose impeaching President Trump, but a third senior Democrat aide told them there would probably be many more than just a half dozen defections.
Bade and DeBonis wrote:
Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.
[...]
Predictions about some defections come as a core group of centrists from districts Trump won in 2016 are having second thoughts. While many knew impeachment would never be popular in their GOP-leaning districts, some have been surprised that support hasn’t increased despite negative testimony about Trump from a series of blockbuster hearings last month. Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called ‘splitting the baby’: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.
HOWEVER --- I have to admit, I've not seen the Republicans this united in a long time. GOOD JOB, Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler!!!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
98 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
294 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
363 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment