Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

Don't think for one minute the U.S. Supreme Court will refrain from acting if the Congress acts in an "unConstitutional" manner to avoid a national crisis. Originally Posted by LexusLover

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)


What's good for the goose .....

Unfortunately litigation is the answer to "overreaching authority" .... and is much less disruptive to the Government as a whole.

Based on Youngstown one must look to the legislation already passed by Congress regarding immigration to determine whether or not there is actual or an implied authority to issue the Executive Order he has issued.

BTW: the Andrew Johnson "impeachment" is not precedent to "authorize" the House to "impeach" .... He was acquitted just like Clinton and no litigation arose from it for the Court to say one way or another.

I can almost see the Court's opinion: The remedy is litigating the issue.

That is the least disruptive remedy, which does have precedent.

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)


What's good for the goose .....

Unfortunately litigation is the answer to "overreaching authority" .... and is much less disruptive to the Government as a whole.

Based on Youngstown one must look to the legislation already passed by Congress regarding immigration to determine whether or not there is actual or an implied authority to issue the Executive Order he has issued.

BTW: the Andrew Johnson "impeachment" is not precedent to "authorize" the House to "impeach" .... He was acquitted just like Clinton and no litigation arose from it for the Court to say one way or another.

I can almost see the Court's opinion: The remedy is litigating the issue.

That is the least disruptive remedy, which does have precedent. Originally Posted by LexusLover

As Jackie delineated, the Constitution gives the House full discretion to impeach. Johnson's impeachment proceedings are an example where such discretion was entirely politically motivated. More recently, Odumbo's GITMO prisoner exchange violated a statute, and that violation is on par with Johnson's firing of Stanton.

Michelle won't let him.

You want Biden? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Awwwww......Let Uncle Joe have a crack at it!

As Jackie delineated, the Constitution gives the House full discretion to impeach. Johnson's impeachment proceedings are an example where such discretion was entirely politically motivated. More recently, Odumbo's GITMO prisoner exchange violated a statute, and that violation is on par with Johnson's firing of Stanton. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And #1, what was the result of the effort to oust Johnson? ZIP!

Same with Clinton ... ZIP!

The Constitution does NOT give the House "full discretion" at all.

Cite the provision providing for "full discretion" to impeach ... not even close.

Here is the standard:
""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."

And Johnson doesn't establish "precedence" for anything other than a waste of time and money. Neither did the Clinton debacle.

You guys want the House to indict Obama ....

.. do you want the Grand Jury to indict Wilson?

The Grand Jury has "full discretion"!!!! by your "interpretation"!

Why on Earth indict someone, if you're not going to get a conviction?

Awwwww......Let Uncle Joe have a crack at it! Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

There might be some SOB advantages to that:



Apparently, that's what some of these guys are hoping! That's the only plus.

And #1, what was the result of the effort to oust Johnson? ZIP!

Same with Clinton ... ZIP!

The Constitution does NOT give the House "full discretion" at all.

Cite the provision providing for "full discretion" to impeach ... not even close.

Here is the standard:
""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."

And Johnson doesn't establish "precedence" for anything other than a waste of time and money. Neither did the Clinton debacle.

You guys want the House to indict Obama ....

.. do you want the Grand Jury to indict Wilson?

The Grand Jury has "full discretion"!!!! by your "interpretation"!

Why on Earth indict someone, if you're not going to get a conviction? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Per the Constitution the House has full discretion to define "High crimes and Misdemeanor's", LL, hence your argument to the contrary is null and void. Further, your argument that there has been no impeachment to set precedent is also null and void, because the Constitution quite clearly and flatly states that the members of Congress can impeach a president if they construe they need to and have the political will and numbers to carry through with the proceedings: regardless of the charge. BTW, LL, I very clearly stated that impeaching Odumbo would not serve this Republic well, so that's your straw man argument.

All this impeachment talk is a waste of time. It's not gonna happen. I doubt the Reps can muster enough votes in the Senate. Doubt enough of them have the stomach for it. Most Americans seem to view impeachment unfavorably and the Reps will have a lot of senate seats to defend in 2016. And impeaching the first black president probably wouldn't bode well for them.

All this impeachment talk is a waste of time. It's not gonna happen. I doubt the Reps can muster enough votes in the Senate. Doubt enough of them have the stomach for it. Most Americans seem to view impeachment unfavorably and the Reps will have a lot of senate seats to defend in 2016. And impeaching the first black president probably wouldn't bode well for them. Originally Posted by cowboy8055

Exactly! Enduring two more years is easy by comparison.

Per the Constitution the House has full discretion to define "High crimes and Misdemeanor's", Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Where does it say that?

I think you guys are missing the point ...

.... you both area "assuming" impeachment is the "end result," and

... here is the exact quote from the Constitution:

"The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

The words "full" and "discretion" appear no where.

"sole" in that context means "exclusive" .... only and having "exclusive jurisdiction" does not translate to "full discretion" by rules of constitutional and/or statutory construction..... particularly when read in context with ...

""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."

The Constitution establishes for what the House can impeach and for what the Senate can convict. Period.

Just because someone does 70 and doesn't get stopped, doesn't make the speed limit 70 ... if the posted sign says "65"! So Johnson is irrelevant.

And you guys really don't want "to go there"!

Look both of you have correctly accessed that it will not happen and would be a horrible for the GOP and nation as a whole if it did.

IMHO the adults in GOP will not let it happen. They beat down Tea Party candidates in the primary and took back the Senate. They will not then let the Tea Party faction blow up any chance they have of winning the WH with impeachment proceedings.

Where does it say that?

I think you guys are missing the point ...

.... you both area "assuming" impeachment is the "end result," and

... here is the exact quote from the Constitution:

"The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

The words "full" and "discretion" appear no where.

"sole" in that context means "exclusive" .... only and having "exclusive jurisdiction" does not translate to "full discretion" by rules of constitutional and/or statutory construction..... particularly when read in context with ...

""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."

The Constitution establishes for what the House can impeach and for what the Senate can convict. Period.

Just because someone does 70 and doesn't get stopped, doesn't make the speed limit 70 ... if the posted sign says "65"! So Johnson is irrelevant.

And you guys really don't want "to go there"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Founding Fathers had considered using the term, "maladministration" on lieu of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

High crimes and misdemeanors is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term “high misdemeanor” to be quite limited in meaning, but debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress’ “removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht...html#fnb770ref

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes....

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public 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.”

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/h...demeanors.html

BTW, your fixation on the proceedings against Johnson as anything other than an 'example' of the political nature of the impeachment process is troubling. It's not likely Odumbo will be impeached for firing Stanton. Meanwhile, Odumbo was found to be in violation of current statutes when he exchanged five GITMO prisoners for Bergdahl.

Impeachment, and conviction, is based on two criteria.
1. Does the House of Representatives have enough votes to bring forth the Articles of Impeachment.
2. Does the Senate have the 2/3 majority required to convict. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The Constitution is not vague what so ever. "High Crimes and Misdomeanors" are what a majority of the House says they are. The House is a totally independent body in this regard.

Also, the Senate has absolute authority in it's verdict. There is no appeal upon conviction by 2/3 of the Senate.

Of course, the recourse of the voters is to vote those members out in the next election if they believe that the impeachment and conviction was unjust.

That is the way the system works. Period. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Suicide much?

It is "forbidden" because what you are proposing is insane. And would destroy the GOP for at least 20 years.

Impeachment is meant for actual crimes as noted by Lexus Lover, not overstepping the powers of your office.

Both the Congress and POTUS overstep their powers all the time. That is what the judiciary if for - to rein them in. Whether it is recess appointments, Affordable Care Act, or limitations on free speech, we use the courts to tell the other two branches what is and is not constitutional.

What you are so recklessly proposing is using impeachment to resolve a political impasse. If the GOP can gather the votes to impeach Obama, they can use the same votes to override Obama's vetoes instead. And they can do so without causing a constitutional crisis.

Worst of all, you seem to have forgotten that what goes around comes around.

If the Dems take back the Senate in 2016 when the GOP has a lot more seats at stake and also take back the House in 2016 or 2018, what is to stop them from impeaching a GOP president who tries, for example, to enforce border security?

The end result is just anarchy and payback, not rule of law. I'd rather not live in your dystopia.

Bill Clinton was a lying dirtbag, but he was a popular lying dirtbag. People didn't care that we has a cheater and a liar - they knew that when they elected him.

But the GOP tarnished itself trying to bring down a man who essentially lied about getting laid. Yes, yes, yes, I know he lied under oath to prosecutors about whether or not he had an affair with Lewinsky, but the perception of most folks was that a lie about sex was not as bad as a lie about, for example, taking bribes, breaking campaign finance laws, or ordering a burglary.

To the average guy it is a different - and understandable - type of lie.

While impeachment may ultimately be a political, not a legal, act, it is for POLITICAL reasons that is never going to happen. That is why it is forbidden.

The Founding Fathers had considered using the term, "maladministration" on lieu of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Thank you!

If a statute or constitutional provision is "ambiguous" then the Court's look to "legislative/constitutional" history to determine meaning .... consideration of a term and rejection of that term is meaningful in that "maladministration" was rejected as a standard by which a President could be impeached.

As for MY fixation on Johnson ... you guys keep bringing him up ... don't switch the bullshit to me when it doesn't apply .... I'm not "fixed" on Johnson's or Clinton's ..... I have consistently said neither are "precedent" to justify a politically motivated impeachment.

You guys are wrong on the law and wrong on the strategy.

One day you will both comprehend the meaning of:

"Jumping from the frying pan into the fire" and

"The shoe is on the other foot soon enough."

There is a drunkard DA in Travis County, Texas, who sought a "politically motivated" persecution of an elected official (Tom Delay) and the appellate courts handed her ass back to her. All the politically motivated hacks blamed it on "politics" .... the same principles apply. Whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, the principles should be the same.

These politically motivated "gotcha games" are a waste of taxpayer money and are not what the Congress was voted to do.

It's not a "forbidden topic" ... there are just more important tasks to handle.

Thank you!




There is a drunkard DA in Travis County, Texas, who sought a "politically motivated" persecution of an elected official (Tom Delay) and the appellate courts handed her ass back to her.
. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ronnie Earle prosecuted Tom DeLay.

Thank you!

If a statute or constitutional provision is "ambiguous" then the Court's look to "legislative/constitutional" history to determine meaning .... consideration of a term and rejection of that term is meaningful in that "maladministration" was rejected as a standard by which a President could be impeached.

As for MY fixation on Johnson ... you guys keep bringing him up ... don't switch the bullshit to me when it doesn't apply .... I'm not "fixed" on Johnson's or Clinton's ..... I have consistently said neither are "precedent" to justify a politically motivated impeachment.

You guys are wrong on the law and wrong on the strategy.

One day you will both comprehend the meaning of:

"Jumping from the frying pan into the fire" and

"The shoe is on the other foot soon enough."

There is a drunkard DA in Travis County, Texas, who sought a "politically motivated" persecution of an elected official (Tom Delay) and the appellate courts handed her ass back to her. All the politically motivated hacks blamed it on "politics" .... the same principles apply. Whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, the principles should be the same.

These politically motivated "gotcha games" are a waste of taxpayer money and are not what the Congress was voted to do.

It's not a "forbidden topic" ... there are just more important tasks to handle. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The House defines what is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"; not a court. Odumbo's has already violated a statute when he released five GITMO prisoners without informing Congress before hand. Should one of those prisoners once again become a major player in either ISIS or al Qaeda, it would be easy for a member of the House to construe a charge of treason. Further, Johnson's impeachment serves to underscore how the impeachment process is highly political and has little to do with criminality.