Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

YThe Constitution clearly states ...the House that determines what is an impeachable offense.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Art. Section. Clause.

You have it ass backwards ...

.... and given your ranting about Obaminable not have authority to issue executive orders I would "expect" you to insist that if the government is not given the specific power it seeks to exercise in the Constitution then it does not have the power to do so! That IS THE LAW.

It is not my burden to show the government has the power it is yours who are asserting that a specific governmental body has that power. And I think the phrase tossed around on your "side of the aisle" is ...

"FULL DISCRETION" .... which is NOT FOUND in the Constitution ANY WHERE!

Again since you assert the House has the authority to ...

.."determines what is an impeachable offense" .. even though there is a specific qualification in the Constitution ....


.. then were does it say "the House determines what is an impeachable offense" without any appeal and/or oversight ... except for another election.

I'll save you the time. IT'S A FACT: IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!

[Jackie S]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Just read Article 2 and Article 3.

It's really pretty simple.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Art. Section. Clause.

You have it ass backwards ...

.... and given your ranting about Obaminable not have authority to issue executive orders I would "expect" you to insist that if the government is not given the specific power it seeks to exercise in the Constitution then it does not have the power to do so! That IS THE LAW.

It is not my burden to show the government has the power it is yours who are asserting that a specific governmental body has that power. And I think the phrase tossed around on your "side of the aisle" is ...

"FULL DISCRETION" .... which is NOT FOUND in the Constitution ANY WHERE!

Again since you assert the House has the authority to ...

.."determines what is an impeachable offense" .. even though there is a specific qualification in the Constitution ....


.. then were does it say "the House determines what is an impeachable offense" without any appeal and/or oversight ... except for another election.

I'll save you the time. IT'S A FACT: IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!

No, LL, you are the one who has an opinion that is not based on the Constitution. You're the one who must produce documentation that refutes the House's Constitutional right to construe and formulate charges for impeachment.

Originally Posted by Jackie S

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Just read Article 2 and Article 3.

It's really pretty simple.

+1

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, LL, you are the one who has an opinion that is not based on the Constitution. You're the one who must produce documentation that refutes the House's Constitutional right to formulate charges for impeachment.


+1

According to IBH on "constitutional law" and "statutory interpretation.....

..... good luck with that.

You didn't read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952), et seq., did you?

Surely your constitutional law professor at least mentioned it!

And to bring it up to current events, you might want to revisit Judge Roberts opinion on the ACA, if you ever did "visit' it in the first place.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

According to IBH on "constitutional law" and "statutory interpretation.....

..... good luck with that.

You didn't read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952), et seq., did you?

Surely your constitutional law professor at least mentioned it!

And to bring it up to current events, you might want to revisit Judge Roberts opinion on the ACA, if you ever did "visit' it in the first place.

As in all matters concerning Constitutional interpretation, the experts examine the intent of the Founders. The Founders' intent has been discerned and cited, LL, and you erroneously choose to dismiss those findings out of hand. Meanwhile, you deflect when you cite Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer which has nothing to do with the Constitutional right of Congress to impeach a president of the United States for acts committed or omitted.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Just read Article 2 and Article 3.

It's really pretty simple.

It's so "simple" you can't quote it .... because "it ain't there."

It's all about "due process," which is a legal concept not a political one. It is (and was) intentionally made "legal" to assure that regardless of who is "in charge" (meaning party affiliation or otherwise, e.g. "White Folks") the authority of the Government (all 3 branches BTW) would be exercised based upon written authority and irrespective of race, etc.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's so "simple" you can't quote it .... because "it ain't there."

It's all about "due process," which is a legal concept not a political one. It is (and was) intentionally made "legal" to assure that regardless of who is "in charge" (meaning party affiliation or otherwise, e.g. "White Folks") the authority of the Government (all 3 branches BTW) would be exercised based upon written authority and irrespective of race, etc.

When the Constitution was written there were no "political parties" to consider and only white (for the most part), property owning men could vote. The Constitution makes it clear that the impeachment process is a political option when in supplemental text (in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7) it mentions that impeachment does not preclude or supplant criminal (statutory) prosecution:

"Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As in all matters concerning Constitutional interpretation, the experts examine the intent of the Founders. The Founders' intent has been discerned and cited, LL, and you erroneously choose to dismiss those findings out of hand. Meanwhile, you deflect when you cite Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer which has nothing to do with the Constitutional right of Congress to impeach a president of the United States for acts committed or omitted.

I'm not deflecting from anything ... Youngstown and Federation in their majority opinions reflect authority of the branches (two different ones) in exercising their "authority" ... and both reference the method of interpretation.

The "founders' intent" was reflected in an online free dictionary blog???

And that is

"settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Next time you're in court and intend to quote the "Free Dictionary" as "settled law"... please let me know. The entertainment might be worth the air fare.

Statutory constructions principles are applied to constitutional construction equally, and "history" is only relevant if there is "ambiguity" in the language that must be reconciled. Your opinion of what it "ought to say" doesn't create an ambiguity ... A COURT ... examines the language and if A COURT can understand the plain language then bullshit from 200 years ago is irrelevant.

What you all cited was a REJECTION of the idea that Congress could use "mal" behavior as a basis for an impeachment by the "founders" .. not an acceptance of it. That rejection is consistent with what the "founders" were attempting to avoid .. and that is "politics" deciding what action to take.

Congress is PROHIBITED from passing laws based on race and The Court can set it aside if it does. Determining that a Black man cannot serve as President is not only a violation of the Constitution itself, but it violates the prohibition against imposing a "race based" standard in the "indictment" of impeachment.

Federation reflects the Court's role in "overseeing" Congressional action.

The "issue" is not will the House do it, the "issue" is can the House do it legally ... the "will" is the politics ... the "can" is the legality of doing so.

That IS simple.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not deflecting from anything ... Youngstown and Federation in their majority opinions reflect authority of the branches (two different ones) in exercising their "authority" ... and both reference the method of interpretation.

The "founders' intent" was reflected in an online free dictionary blog???

And that is

"settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Next time you're in court and intend to quote the "Free Dictionary" as "settled law"... please let me know. The entertainment might be worth the air fare.

Statutory constructions principles are applied to constitutional construction equally, and "history" is only relevant if there is "ambiguity" in the language that must be reconciled. Your opinion of what it "ought to say" doesn't create an ambiguity ... A COURT ... examines the language and if A COURT can understand the plain language then bullshit from 200 years ago is irrelevant.

What you all cited was a REJECTION of the idea that Congress could use "mal" behavior as a basis for an impeachment by the "founders" .. not an acceptance of it. That rejection is consistent with what the "founders" were attempting to avoid .. and that is "politics" deciding what action to take.

Congress is PROHIBITED from passing laws based on race and The Court can set it aside if it does. Determining that a Black man cannot serve as President is not only a violation of the Constitution itself, but it violates the prohibition against imposing a "race based" standard in the "indictment" of impeachment.

Federation reflects the Court's role in "overseeing" Congressional action.

The "issue" is not will the House do it, the "issue" is can the House do it legally ... the "will" is the politics ... the "can" is the legality of doing so.

That IS simple.

Evidently you are suffering from a lapse of memory or willfully ignoring the previously cited Cornell Law opinion, based on extant convention arguments and the Federalist Papers, which echoed what was reported by the Legal Dictionary. BTW, the Constitution was an ordinance that embraced other laws based on race. That would not begin to change until 1865 and was not a settled matter until the 1960s.

[lustylad]

This debate is another reason why it might have been better if the Founders had incorporated a few aspects of the British Parliamentary system into our own Constitution. Of course, at the time we were in no mood to look to the Brits as a model. However, I always liked the idea that a simple no-confidence vote can bring down a Government in the U.K. No dickering over what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors", no drawn-out proceedings, and no pretense that impeachment is a legal versus a political proceeding - if the House of Commons loses confidence at any time for any reason, the Prime Minister must resign. If we had something similar, it would restrict the power of the executive branch, reduce gridlock and keep the fucking politicians on their toes knowing a snap election can be called at any time.

Regarding the OP's question of why impeachment is not being taken seriously at the moment, it's because Obama would like nothing better than to see it happen. He is laying a trap for the GOP-controlled Congress, daring them to impeach him because he knows it would redound to his own political benefit. This is very dangerous. He is emboldend because he knows the I-word is off the table. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh says we're not going to impeach our first black President. So Obama thinks he can push deeper and deeper into "high crimes and misdemeanor" territory and not be stopped or constrained in any way. It's possible he will push too far and overreach so clumsily that we will have no choice but to go for impeachment. But I think the new GOP-controlled Congress initially would be wise and prudent to limit its pushback to alternatives such as cutting off funding for his unconstitutional actions.

Just my two cents.

[Jackie S]

Once again, just read Article 2 and 3, that's it. Just hit the link and read it. It's the actual Constitution, not someone's opinion.

This is what is wrong with most Americans in today's society. They are so caught up in an opinion that they never actually see what the Constitution says.

LL, you and I probably agree on 95 % of all the topics that come up on this Forum and in the news in general. We will just have to disagree on this one.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This debate is another reason why it might have been better if the Founders had incorporated a few aspects of the British Parliamentary system into our own Constitution.

Regarding the OP's question of why impeachment is not being taken seriously at the moment, it's because Obama would like nothing better than to see it happen.

Just my two cents.

The "discussion" about whether or not Congress can impeach in this thread is not about Government or law. It's about politics. The "no confidence" vote is not taken lightly, but their country has an overshadowing bond, although it is a figurehead in function, and we don't have that institution in this country, although the current duffus is sure trying to manipulate it into that.

Unfortunately, our current President, much like Nixon, has deluded himself into his narcissistic perception of his role in the history of this nation. At least Nixon was "counseled' by some wise men to put his personal feelings aside and move on .... Ford was "off stage" to take over. We don't have anyone near the character and quality of Ford to step into an unelected position to carry on with the country's business without stepping on too many toes along the way. He was supposed to do nothing ... and he did nothing well.

Instead of spinning wheels in an "impeachment" that will never bear fruit, passing legislation for Obaminable to sign or reject, and then building a veto proof following to overturn his arrogance, is productive and what most of the voters in this country apparently want, based on the elections and polling during that time frame.

When one sets about to fuck someone their pants are down and their ass is exposed. The Republicans (and Democrats) have shown their asses enough lately. It's time for some production in a positive direction.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This debate is another reason why it might have been better if the Founders had incorporated a few aspects of the British Parliamentary system into our own Constitution. Of course, at the time we were in no mood to look to the Brits as a model. However, I always liked the idea that a simple no-confidence vote can bring down a Government in the U.K. No dickering over what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors", no drawn-out proceedings, and no pretense that impeachment is a legal versus a political proceeding - if the House of Commons loses confidence at any time for any reason, the Prime Minister must resign. If we had something similar, it would restrict the power of the executive branch, reduce gridlock and keep the fucking politicians on their toes knowing a snap election can be called at any time.

Regarding the OP's question of why impeachment is not being taken seriously at the moment, it's because Obama would like nothing better than to see it happen. He is laying a trap for the GOP-controlled Congress, daring them to impeach him because he knows it would redound to his own political benefit. This is very dangerous. He is emboldend because he knows the I-word is off the table. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh says we're not going to impeach our first black President. So Obama thinks he can push deeper and deeper into "high crimes and misdemeanor" territory and not be stopped or constrained in any way. It's possible he will push too far and overreach so clumsily that we will have no choice but to go for impeachment. But I think the new GOP-controlled Congress initially would be wise and prudent to limit its pushback to alternatives such as cutting off funding for his unconstitutional actions.

Just my two cents.

I like our Constitutional Republic. In Parlimentary Governments, the laws can change with the political tides. Our Founding Fathers deliberately made our Constitution The Supreme Law of the Land, and at the same time, very difficult to change.

That way, it stands the test of time and does not yield to the petty whims of the moment.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Once again, just read Article 2 and 3, that's it. Just hit the link and read it. It's the actual Constitution, not someone's opinion.

This is what is wrong with most Americans in today's society. They are so caught up in an opinion that they never actually see what the Constitution says.

LL, you and I probably agree on 95 % of all the topics that come up on this Forum and in the news in general. We will just have to disagree on this one.

Sir, I have read, studied, applied, taught, and/or practiced the Constitution, including research and writing about the meaning of it and implementing statutes, for a relatively long period of time, and still do. One reason I am usually the first to post the actual opinions or links to opinions discussed on this board, as well as statutes and provisions in the Constitutions (Federal and State) is because I don't rely on uninformed opinions for the basis of my thought processes. And something tells me much longer than you.

Do yourself a favor: Take your condescending attitude and shove it.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Take your condescending attitude and shove it.

Pot meet Kettle!