Are Democrats enemies of the Constitution?

[jwoodie]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

 

[Terri4Trump]

Excellent OP

 

[progressive hunter]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

not sure why youre singling out democrats???
republicans have been pissing on the constitution almost as long as dems have,,and if you consider the patriot act that republicans put in place which pretty much violates all first 10 amendments they could be worse,,,

 

[jwoodie]

The Democrats are cheating the Constitution out of one of its most solemn provisions. No amount of crocodile tears by Nancy Pelosi can erase that fact. Had the Founders known of these partisan antics, they probably would have required a new election of House members before they actually voted on impeachment.

Wait a minute, isn't that what the 2020 elections are supposed to do?

 

[jwoodie]

not sure why youre singling out democrats???

Because they voted for this impeachment. Start your own thread on the Patriot Act if you want.

 

[j-mac]

Are Democrats enemies of the Constitution?

Answer: YES!

/Thread

 

[CowboyTed]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

So what are people to to do when the President breaks the law?

Trump asked a country to interfere with the US Elections and you are saying we should let him off... Trump will just continue asking countries then. At present there is a story going round that Rudy his personal lawyer is being paid indirectly by Russia. That is a very real danger to US considering they are also vetoing Syrian help in the UN as well.

The President had the opportunity to not obstruct the investigation and could have even testified himself... The evidence and testimonies are overwhelming. If Trump is so innocent why doesn't he turn over all the evidence he has been requested. Why doesn't he let his staff testify?

Problem you got is not only does Trump look guilty but he also is acting guilty too..

 

[Gdjjr]

LOL- the politicians have been "interpreting" the constitution since it's inception- How was Lincoln's usurping any different?
Nixon's? Bush Jr's? How about the federal reserve act? Why do Republicans still subscribe to it? Why do Republicans support asset seizure laws? Why do Republicans support the war on drugs and poverty and intervention in sovereign countries?

Neither Party respects the constitution. Period.

 

[j-mac]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

So what are people to to do when the President breaks the law?

He would have to have broken the law, not your made up reasoning...

Trump asked a country to interfere with the US Elections...

Lie. A narrative made up by Democrats and the anti Trump media.

At present there is a story going round that Rudy his personal lawyer is being paid indirectly by Russia.

You mean the next lie? Boy, you assholes don't quit do you...Such imaginations.

The President had the opportunity to not obstruct the investigation and could have even testified himself...

Ever heard of Presidential Privilage? Educate yourself. Instead of taking the word of others.

The evidence and testimonies are overwhelming.

Of what? That liberals don't like Trump? Just a tip for you...Hearsay is not evidence of anything.

If Trump is so innocent why doesn't he turn over all the evidence he has been requested. Why doesn't he let his staff testify?

In America we don't prove our innocence, it's up to you jakyl's to prove his guilt...So far you have failed.

Problem you got is not only does Trump look guilty but he also is acting guilty too..

That statement alone is why you would never sit on a jury....

 

[Care4all]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

the federalist papers also said high crimes and misdemeanors were the president's abuse of power and the loss of public trust... which are not statutory crimes, but high crimes such as breaking their oath of office...

and the founders gave the house a lower burden to charge a president,
but a higher burden, to convict....

and the founders believed it would be the Senators that would be less political, more impartial and take the jurist responsibility with great care...

BTW, there were no political parties at the time our founders wrote the constitution...

 

[progressive hunter]

not sure why youre singling out democrats???

Because they voted for this impeachment. Start your own thread on the Patriot Act if you want.

according to the thread title its about enemies of the constitution,,,

you used impeachment as your example and I used the patriot act,,,

sorry if the truth hurts your feelings

 

[Care4all]

the founders surely did not anticipate a corrupt Senate Leader like McConnell going completely rogue of his constitutional duty and impeachment oath and telling everyone in the public watching FOX news that he was working lock step with the defendant's, the president's lawyers as if they were his own, and assured the public the president would not be impeached/removed under him.

 

[Tax Man]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

tRumpy has been and continues to be a hazard for the very constitution you claim to know so much about. His time in power has degraded Americas standing in the free world

 

[Care4all]

And he spat on the House's constitutional duty of oversight, the ONLY small part of the three branches of gvt, that actually represents us... which not only breaks his constitutional oath, but is dangerous, imo!!!

 

[jwoodie]

And he spat on the House's constitutional duty of oversight, the ONLY small part of the three branches of gvt, that actually represents us... which not only breaks his constitutional oath, but is dangerous, imo!!!

OK let's add spitting to the impeachment.

 

[jwoodie]

tRumpy has been and continues to be a hazard for the very constitution you claim to know so much about. His time in power has degraded Americas standing in the free world

Would you like to include that with spitting?

P.S. Will the apocalypse occur before November? Or is Trump's reelection the apocalypse?

 

[Terri4Trump]

Are Democrats enemies of the Constitution?

Answer: YES!

/Thread

Obviously

 

[The Original Tree]

The Founders of our Constitution made it quite clear that they did want impeachment to be a partisan action to be taken by the House. Furthermore, they created a very high standard (2/3 majority in the Senate) to guard against this action actually resulting in the removal of a sitting President. Therefore, it should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances where there is an imminent danger to the country that cannot be addressed through the electoral process.

Can anyone dispute that the recent impeachment hearings and vote is anything but a political stunt put forward by the Democrats as a expression of dissatisfaction with the 2016 election results? Given that actual removal of President Trump has no chance of being agreed to by the Senate, doesn't this action contravene clear Constitutional intent? Or did its Founders really intend for impeachment to be used by a majority in the House merely to harass the President or other officials they don't like?

Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump constitutes an imminent danger to our country during the next eleven months? Or does he only represent an imminent danger to the Democrats? Which is more important to you?

I understand differences of opinion on how to approach problems that "CITIZENS" of the United States face, but being in Congress demands that you be honest, trustworthy and not self serving.

Adam Schiff is none of those. In fact, he is The Opposite of what any Citizen should want in a representative, "IF" they are honest people themselves.

 

[DGS49]

The Impeachment fiasco is just the latest example.

For anyone paying attention, the Democrats have been trying to re-write the Constitution since the days of Woodrow Wilson. But rather than pursue Amendments - which would have lacked sufficient popular support to pass - they have populated the Federal Courts with Leftist judges and justices who have virtually neutered the vital Tenth Amendment, which was written to create a real WALL (unlike the fictitious "wall" of separation between Church & State) between the powers of the Feds and the States.

Nearly half of our Federal spending is on programs that are plainly unconstitutional. The Founders would be flabbergasted to see a Federal "Department of Education," or Social Security & Medicare, not to mention Housing & Urban Development (or whatever it is called these days). National Public Radio? Are you kidding?

And we have Democrat presidential candidates who are openly hawking socialized medicine, paying off private education loans, reparations for slavery, and neutering our immigration laws, not to mention destroying the economy in the name of Saving the Planet.

How can anyone be surprised when they bastardize trivialities like the impeachment of a President?

 

[JusticeHammer]

Yes!!!!