Southern Chicken
Verified User
Utter nonsense, a motion and vote by simple majority ends it.
Robot roll call Impeachment
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
Utter nonsense, a motion and vote by simple majority ends it.
hope so,, the Articles are not founded on a Constitutional grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Obstruction of Congress was completely destroyed by the SCOTUS ruling they would take up Trumps appeal
to subpoenas
“The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.”
lawfareblog.com
lawfareblog.com
“The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight.”
lawfareblog.com
lawfareblog.com
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Southern Chicken,
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
Here is the actual Oath, as determined by the House, that they all took:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
US House of Representatives
I draw your attention to the phrase:
"without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,"
and the phrase:
"will bear true faith and allegiance to" [the Constitution]
So their job is to openly consider the evidence without any partisan consideration, not to defend the President from the get-go.
What they did is showing allegiance to the Republican party, to President Trump, not the Constitution.
Therefore, they have violated their oaths of office.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
Here is the actual Oath, as determined by the House, that they all took:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
US House of Representatives
I draw your attention to the phrase:
"without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,"
and the phrase:
"will bear true faith and allegiance to" [the Constitution]
So their job is to openly consider the evidence without any partisan consideration, not to defend the President from the get-go.
What they did is showing allegiance to the Republican party, to President Trump, not the Constitution.
Therefore, they have violated their oaths of office.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Southern Chicken,
I would be OK if Senate Republicans show how prejudiced they are by not even bothering to conduct a trial. But I bet Democrats would not vote for that.
I would be OK if Senate Republicans show how prejudiced they are by not even bothering to conduct a trial. But I bet Democrats would not vote for that.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello dukkha,
The SCOTUS has made no such decision.
Unlike some Republicans the SCOTUS will actually hear and consider the evidence before deciding.
The SCOTUS has made no such decision.
Unlike some Republicans the SCOTUS will actually hear and consider the evidence before deciding.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Nothing posted above is proof(not your accusation) of Constitutional violation by the Republican party.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Politalker will omit your posts. It doesn't support his/her opinion
There was ample reason for it being offered. You had said there was no "proof."
In fact, let me repeat it:
I've heard a half-dozen former federal prosecutors say that most of the convictions in their courts for extortion...were obtained with less "proof."
Indeed.
His opinion is just an opinion.
The Senate can do the equivalent of a summary judgement.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Southern Chicken,
Doesn't matter. Even if it was proven, prejudiced closed minds would not admit it.
Doesn't matter. Even if it was proven, prejudiced closed minds would not admit it.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Exactly
The Pentagon had signed off on the "have they done enough regarding corruption" thingy that they do will every foreign aid disbursement, Dog.
This was Trump attempting to extort President Zelensky...whether you can see and acknowledge it or not.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
I am so glad Politalker has me on ignore. :0)
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Did you not see my rebuttal? Most of their cases included due process situations than what was used here.