Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Impeachment: Part Deux

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Impeachment: Part Deux

    Welcome to my Ted Talk.

    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution provides:
    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:
    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Now maybe its just me being literal but "sole Power" doesn't seem to have a lot of ambiguity to it.

    Furthermore there is Federalist No. 65 and 66 written by Alexander Hamilton where in he basically defends the Senate's impeachment power from Anti-Federalist arguments like it should be done by the Supreme Court. Instructive since Alexander Hamilton is one of the signatures on the actual Constitution.

    Republicans are citing Professor Turley. Who apparently has evolved on the issue since 1999 (around the time of the Clinton Impeachment) when he wrote in the Duke Law Review recognized the value of impeachment trials beyond removal from office.

    From the 1999 Turley article

    Accordingly, [William W. Belknap, the former secretary of war] was saved by two senators [in 1876] who believed that jurisdictional barriers prevented conviction. Fourteen Republicans defected to vote for conviction.

    The most important aspect of the Belknap case was not his narrow escape but the trial itself. Members of both parties ultimately concluded that a trial of Belknap was needed as a corrective political measure. If impeachment was simply a matter of removal, the argument for jurisdiction in the Belknap case would be easily resolved against hearing the matter. The Senate majority, however, was correct in its view that impeachments historically had extended to former officials, such as [prominent British imperialist] Warren Hastings.

    Impeachment, as demonstrated by Edmund Burke, serves a public value in addressing conduct at odds with core values in a society. At a time of lost confidence in the integrity of the government, the conduct of a former official can demand a political response. This response in the form of an impeachment may be more important than a legal response in the form of a prosecution. Regardless of the outcome, the Belknap trial addressed the underlying conduct and affirmed core principles at a time of diminishing faith in government. Absent such a trial, Belknap’s rush to resign would have succeeded in barring any corrective political action to counter the damage to the system caused by his conduct. Even if the only penalty is disqualification from future office, the open presentation of the evidence and witnesses represents the very element that was missing in colonial impeachments. Such a trial has a political value that runs vertically as a response to the public and horizontally as a deterrent to the executive branch.
    Per Reason.com 170 legal scholars signed a letter setting forth the reasons why impeachment and trial of officials who have left office is in fact constitutional. Including notable conservative and libertarian signers include Steve Calabresi (co-founder of the Federalist Society, and leading academic expert on executive power), Michael Stokes Paulsen, Jonathan Adler, Sasha Volokh, and others.

    In conclusion every Republican who voted with Sen. Paul were wrong. However today the Senate reaffirmed by majority vote that you can impeach officials even after they have left office. Just as the Senate did in 1876 concluded in moving forward with the impeachment William W. Belknap the former secretary of war who resigned in an effort to escape impeachment.
    Last edited by TTURedRaider; 01-26-2021, 08:35 PM.

  • #2
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-impeachment/

    Republicans think you can be impeached for conduct before assuming the presidency, but not for conduct during the presidency.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DPR View Post
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-impeachment/

      Republicans think you can be impeached for conduct before assuming the presidency, but not for conduct during the presidency.
      If it makes you feel better, they might change their minds in four or so years.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh. And, I predict Trump gets censure. That’s it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deschet View Post
          Oh. And, I predict Trump gets censure. That’s it.
          50 Republicans in 1999 voted to convict and remove Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice related to trying to cover up a blowjob scandal that impacted pretty much nothing.

          5 Republicans (so far) in 2021 voted to convict and remove Donald Trump for inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol that directly and indirectly killed 3 Capitol Police officers so far in the effort to "stop" the Vice President from confirming the election so that they could overturn the results, end American Democracy, and install Trump as a quasi-dictator.

          Good stuff guys.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DPR View Post

            50 Republicans in 1999 voted to convict and remove Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice related to trying to cover up a blowjob scandal that impacted pretty much nothing.

            5 Republicans (so far) in 2021 voted to convict and remove Donald Trump for inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol that directly and indirectly killed 3 Capitol Police officers so far in the effort to "stop" the Vice President from confirming the election so that they could overturn the results, end American Democracy, and install Trump as a quasi-dictator.

            Good stuff guys.
            Yeah. It’s nauseating.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DPR View Post

              50 Republicans in 1999 voted to convict and remove Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice related to trying to cover up a blowjob scandal that impacted pretty much nothing.

              5 Republicans (so far) in 2021 voted to convict and remove Donald Trump for inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol that directly and indirectly killed 3 Capitol Police officers so far in the effort to "stop" the Vice President from confirming the election so that they could overturn the results, end American Democracy, and install Trump as a quasi-dictator.

              Good stuff guys.
              He did lie under oath during a trial because he had an affair with his intern in the WH. Which is misconduct by a public figure. But yes nobody died.

              This impeachment effort against Trump is the only impeachment effort linked to deaths of US citizens and or an attack on Congress as I understand it. But apparently Trump is a private citizen now and we should all just move on. We should focus our efforts to hold Hunter Biden accountable for what was on his laptop.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

                He did lie under oath during a trial because he had an affair with his intern in the WH. Which is misconduct by a public figure. But yes nobody died.

                This impeachment effort against Trump is the only impeachment effort linked to deaths of US citizens and or an attack on Congress as I understand it. But apparently Trump is a private citizen now and we should all just move on. We should focus our efforts to hold Hunter Biden accountable for what was on his laptop.
                It’s both sad and entirely predictable.

                The Republican Party isn’t real big on accountability these days. Less than a handful are holding Taylor Greene to task for her past and current comments. And holy fuck, is she out there.

                As for Trump, I think most Republicans are simply too terrified of the guy to say anything that might draw his ire. They just aren’t willing to risk it. And, if that means letting him off the hook for his attempted coup, so be it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Deschet View Post

                  It’s both sad and entirely predictable.

                  The Republican Party isn’t real big on accountability these days. Less than a handful are holding Taylor Greene to task for her past and current comments. And holy fuck, is she out there.

                  As for Trump, I think most Republicans are simply too terrified of the guy to say anything that might draw his ire. They just aren’t willing to risk it. And, if that means letting him off the hook for his attempted coup, so be it.
                  Who are the 75Million people still identifying themselves as republicans who are ok with Trump being let off the hook for inciting an insurrection?

                  Democrats need to go You're with us or you're with the Enemy (like the way W railroaded Hillary and Kerry and the dems to support the illegal stupid war on Iraq)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deschet View Post

                    It’s both sad and entirely predictable.

                    The Republican Party isn’t real big on accountability these days. Less than a handful are holding Taylor Greene to task for her past and current comments. And holy fuck, is she out there.

                    As for Trump, I think most Republicans are simply too terrified of the guy to say anything that might draw his ire. They just aren’t willing to risk it. And, if that means letting him off the hook for his attempted coup, so be it.
                    They are fundamentally unserious people who were a cult of personality but there leader has been removed from high office so they are purely a opposition party. Q Anon lady doesn't have policy goals she wants to achieve besides impeaching Biden. The only legislation Rep. Boebert wants is a bill to block Biden from rejoining the Paris Agreement. Rep. Madison Cawthorn has said he built out his staff solely for communications not for policy or legislating. He's basically a voting member of Congress who just wants to do what Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do.

                    What is their policy on Covid? Beyond Trump created the vaccines and should get all the credit.

                    They have denounced Biden's Covid legislation without providing alternatives or stating their own policy objectives.
                    Last edited by TTURedRaider; 01-28-2021, 08:45 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

                      They are fundamentally unserious people who were a cult of personality but there leader has been removed from high off so they are purely a opposition party. Q Anon lady doesn't have policy goals she wants to achieve besides impeaching Biden. The only legislation Rep. Boebert wants is a bill to block Biden from rejoining the Paris Agreement. Rep. Madison Cawthorn has said he built out his staff solely for communications not for policy or legislating. He's basically a voting member of Congress who just wants to do what Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do.

                      What is their policy on Covid? Beyond Trump created the vaccines and should get all the credit.

                      They have denounced Biden's Covid legislation without providing alternatives or stating their own policy objectives.
                      To be honest, most GOP offices are like this. I don't say that as a partisan, I say that as someone who knows and works with a lot of GOP offices.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        At the state level, conservative legislatures are pushing the illiberal envelope, prioritizing anti-abortion and anti-trans bills over measures to contain the deadly pandemic that’s claimed the lives of over 400,000 Americans, which rages on unabated on a planet these lawmakers no longer seem to occupy. Even more worryingly, several state Republican Party committees are either openly supporting QAnon or at least flirting with the baseless conspiracy theory that powerful Democrats are running an international child-trafficking scheme and drinking the blood of children.
                        https://newrepublic.com/article/1610...er-suppression

                        It ain't just people like Cawthorn. This is the new Republican party, from the national party down to the states. It's all culture wars and trying to get on Fox News.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "The subject of [impeachment's] jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." - Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #65.

                          The Founding Fathers debated Impeachment at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Initially they only had Treason and Bribery. But George Mason, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Ben Franklin, among others spoke for a broad power of impeachment. George Mason expressed the concern that all “attempts to subvert the Constitution” were not covered. According to James Madison’s notes, George Mason was especially concerned with election fraud and the electoral college: presidents corrupting electors to get elected and again to stay in power “by repeating his guilt.” Edmund Randolph in a speech emphasized broad application. “Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections.” It seems prescient now these men worried about a president losing an election and fighting against a transition. Such conduct would happen only late in the term, and should be punished whether or not that president succeeded. As Randolph said, “Guilt wherever found ought to be punished.”

                          After Mason, Randolph, Madison, Franklin, among others spoke for a broad power of impeachment it seemed to have swayed others. Gouverneur Morris, who was one of the key supporters of a strong presidency and a skeptic of impeachment got up to speak. He conceded that his “opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion.” After noting the infamous “Secret Treaty of Dover” in which Charles II made a corrupt deal with King Louis XIV that led to war, Morris concluded, “The Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for treachery; Corrupting his electors, and incapacity were other causes of impeachment. For the latter he should be punished not as a man, but as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office.” Thus it became "Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

                          Taken together, a fair reading of the Convention debate indicates that the Framers supported a broad impeachment process for presidential misconduct at the end of their terms, especially with respect to re-election abuses, corrupting or contesting electors, and insurrections. They also implicitly viewed disqualification as an important punishment after they were out of office.

                          They were serious about the disqualification part. Remember initially you could hold office as President multiple times. Because was before Presidents had the two term limit which only came about due to the 22nd Amendment which only came into force in 1951.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post
                            "The subject of [impeachment's] jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." - Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #65.

                            The Founding Fathers debated Impeachment at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Initially they only had Treason and Bribery. But George Mason, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Ben Franklin, among others spoke for a broad power of impeachment. George Mason expressed the concern that all “attempts to subvert the Constitution” were not covered. According to James Madison’s notes, George Mason was especially concerned with election fraud and the electoral college: presidents corrupting electors to get elected and again to stay in power “by repeating his guilt.” Edmund Randolph in a speech emphasized broad application. “Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections.” It seems prescient now these men worried about a president losing an election and fighting against a transition. Such conduct would happen only late in the term, and should be punished whether or not that president succeeded. As Randolph said, “Guilt wherever found ought to be punished.”

                            After Mason, Randolph, Madison, Franklin, among others spoke for a broad power of impeachment it seemed to have swayed others. Gouverneur Morris, who was one of the key supporters of a strong presidency and a skeptic of impeachment got up to speak. He conceded that his “opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion.” After noting the infamous “Secret Treaty of Dover” in which Charles II made a corrupt deal with King Louis XIV that led to war, Morris concluded, “The Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for treachery; Corrupting his electors, and incapacity were other causes of impeachment. For the latter he should be punished not as a man, but as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office.” Thus it became "Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

                            Taken together, a fair reading of the Convention debate indicates that the Framers supported a broad impeachment process for presidential misconduct at the end of their terms, especially with respect to re-election abuses, corrupting or contesting electors, and insurrections. They also implicitly viewed disqualification as an important punishment after they were out of office.

                            They were serious about the disqualification part. Remember initially you could hold office as President multiple times. Because was before Presidents had the two term limit which only came about due to the 22nd Amendment which only came into force in 1951.
                            Yeah. No. The GOP doesn’t care about this at all.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Deschet View Post

                              Yeah. No. The GOP doesn’t care about this at all.
                              This. They'll find some way to squirm out of it. They'll insist that the 2A is holy because of the everlasting wisdom of the Founders, but when it comes to inconvenient things they just pretend like it doesn't exist.

                              Sort of like how they treat the bible.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X