CDZ The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

[gipper]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over 200 years late.

 

[Skylar]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over 200 years late.

Jefferson had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country for it. So I don't put much stock in his perspective.

What would you suggest this new constitution look like. This is genuinely an invitation to discussion. It would make a fascinating topic.

 

[JoeMoma]

No no no no no. The Constitutional grounds for impeachment is clearly directly related to the loss of an election. This means that any time the House of Representatives is held by the party opposing the President a State of Coup shall exist. Obviously, that was the intent of the Founders.

Nope. An impeachment isn't a 'coup'. Its a constitutional process and part of the balance of powers designed by the founders.

And given that there weren't parties when the constitution was written, the idea that mechanisms for parties was the 'intent' of the founders is an argument that puts cause AFTER effect.

In short, you'd need a blue police box or a delorian to make that steaming rhetorical pile work.

I think was being facetious, but I could be wrong.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bill Clinton was impeached! The senate vote was not to remove him from office.

Exactly. Impeachment is the indictment.

A lot of people just don't get how the process works.

I remember the news paper headlines the next day.

 

[Skylar]

Bill Clinton was impeached! The senate vote was not to remove him from office.

Exactly. Impeachment is the indictment.

A lot of people just don't get how the process works.

I remember the news paper headlines the next day.

View attachment 284764

And he was. His acquittal in the senate didn't change that.

 

[gipper]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over 200 years late.

Jefferson had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country for it. So I don't put much stock in his perspective.

What would you suggest this new constitution look like. This is genuinely an invitation to discussion. It would make a fascinating topic.

Jefferson had influence on the writting of the constitution, through his correspondence from France. At any rate, his comment that it be rewritten every 19 years has nothing to do with the writing of the original.

 

[Skylar]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over 200 years late.

Jefferson had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country for it. So I don't put much stock in his perspective.

What would you suggest this new constitution look like. This is genuinely an invitation to discussion. It would make a fascinating topic.

Jefferson had influence on the writting of the constitution, through his correspondence from France. At any rate, his comment that it be rewritten every 19 years has nothing to do with the writing of the original.

Limited influence. Any of the members of the Constitutional convention had more.

And what would you like to see in a new constitution?

 

[gipper]

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over 200 years late.

Jefferson had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country for it. So I don't put much stock in his perspective.

What would you suggest this new constitution look like. This is genuinely an invitation to discussion. It would make a fascinating topic.

Jefferson had influence on the writting of the constitution, through his correspondence from France. At any rate, his comment that it be rewritten every 19 years has nothing to do with the writing of the original.

Limited influence. Any of the members of the Constitutional convention had more.

And what would you like to see in a new constitution?

Again his influence in the constitution has no bearing on his statement, though you seem to think it does.

I’m not sure a new constitution would impact anything, since government would just ignore it as they do the current one.

 

[MarathonMike]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

The Congress determines what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

This the game the Democrats play. The intent of the impeachment phrase is very clear in it's TOTAL context. The Democrats zero in the one word that gives them maximum ability to stage their coup "MISDEMEANORS".

 

[DOTR]

Since impeachment is a political act rather than a criminal one I would have to agree Congress decides. But they are rubber stamps for the elites who began, as someone else here pointed out, a few minutes after he was elected to demand impeachment.
Since it’s a political act at entirely media and poll driven. The goal being to drive the Presidents numbers down low enough to pounce.
You don’t owe these people any loyalty or deference. They are the enemies of the American people and they have spent their entire terms attacking our President.
When Trump moves be ready to support him.

 

[diver52]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over App200 years late.

Jefferson had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country for it. So I don't put much stock in his perspective.

What would you suggest this new constitution look like. This is genuinely an invitation to discussion. It would make a fascinating topic.

Jefferson had influence on the writting of the constitution, through his correspondence from France. At any rate, his comment that it be rewritten every 19 years has nothing to do with the writing of the original.

Apparently not enough influence to impress the other FFs. 19 years after the signing none of them or their kids made any attempt to give it a try.

 

[MAGAman]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

The Congress determines what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

Actually the House does. The Senate only convicts or refuses to convict.

 

[MAGAman]

Senator Pellinore would need to hear some *outstanding* justification for why a hamburger would justify impeachment

But that is the SOLE POWER of the House. Once it has decided on what constitutes an impeachable offense, the Senate has to accept that and vote on whether the offense was committed.

Or are you now backtracking?

No. The Senate can vote to convict or not convict based on any criteria they want.

 

[Faun]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

The Congress determines what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

Actually the House does. The Senate only convicts or refuses to convict.

The Senate does too as they can acquit if they decide the alleged offences don't meet high crimes or misdemeanors. Or they can simply not hold a trial at all if they feel that way.

 

[MAGAman]

LOL, You brought up the analogy of a grand jury indictment, then retreat to your slogan when you have your hat handed to you. Do you actually believe that an impeachment based solely on "I hate Trump" would pass constitutional muster? Do you think SCOTUS would uphold that charge as grounds for impeachment? Or how about "Trump ate a hamburger?" Is that a high crime or misdemeanor?

If the House says it is.

The House has plenary power to impeach. SCOTUS has no authority to give an opinion on it.

The power to impeach is similar to POTUS power to pardon, in that there's nothing anyone can do to stop it or undo it after it happens.

 

[MAGAman]

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Or perhaps they just said "We don't care".

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

Impeachment only succeeds if the person is convicted, otherwise the indictment/impeachment charges fails and the person goes free, charges dropped.

 

[gipper]

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.

Jefferson famously said, every 19 years we should remake the constitution. We are over App200 years late.

Jefferson had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country for it. So I don't put much stock in his perspective.

What would you suggest this new constitution look like. This is genuinely an invitation to discussion. It would make a fascinating topic.

Jefferson had influence on the writting of the constitution, through his correspondence from France. At any rate, his comment that it be rewritten every 19 years has nothing to do with the writing of the original.

Apparently not enough influence to impress the other FFs. 19 years after the signing none of them or their kids made any attempt to give it a try.

Means nothing.

I merely stated an opinion made by Jefferson, which I agree with. The fact that his idea wasn’t followed, doesn’t mean his idea sucked.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

The impeachment charges only sticks if he was convicted in the Senate, he remained in office afterwards, which means the Impeachment charges FAILED!

It means that the president was acquitted. He's still impeached.

You are contradicting yourself, since acquittal shows that Impeachment charges was a failure, the charges are then dropped. From Wikipedia is this simple to understand statement about what Impeachment is:

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

bolding mine

===========================

Impeachment is simply a process to charge someone of something illegal.

If the charges fails in court or in the senate, indictment charges, and impeachment charges have failed.

No conviction means criminal charges fails, end of story.

===========================

Straight from the U.S House of Representatives website:

"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action"

bolding mine

This shows it is the HOUSE members who prosecute the accused in the Senate, thus when they fail to back up the impeachment charges, it can be said that Impeachment charges failed when the Senate members vote no for conviction. All you have left is that the accused was charged with something (for the history books), which becomes meaningless when the accused is found not guilty.

This is what I am talking about.