Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

The House defines what is "HIgh Crimes and Misdemeanors"; not a court. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And where does it say that in the Constitution.

So, the "House" decides it's a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor" to be Black and be President of the United States. So the House votes to impeach Obaminable, because he is a Black man in the office of President.

Right?

Ronnie Earle prosecuted Tom DeLay. Originally Posted by WTF

Stand to be corrected ... it was a SOBER DA ... who got his ass handed to him .... and now they are going after Perry with a 'special prosecutor.... over the drunk refusing to quit busting balls statewide in her political crusade?

And where does it say that in the Constitution.

So, the "House" decides it's a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor" to be Black and be President of the United States. So the House votes to impeach Obaminable, because he is a Black man in the office of President.

Right? Originally Posted by LexusLover

As ridiculous as your straw man argument sounds, the answer is "Yes", provided Congress has the numbers and the will to carry the proceedings to a conclusion, Congress could try to impeach a president for any reason they deem necessary.

It's settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" because the House most directly represents the people, and the Constitution does not relegate that power to any other branch. The Senate, of course, must also buy into the proceedings or the charges are not promulgated.

The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...d+Misdemeanors

And where does it say that in the Constitution.

So, the "House" decides it's a "high crime" or a "misdemeanor" to be Black and be President of the United States. So the House votes to impeach Obaminable, because he is a Black man in the office of President.

Right? Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, the only entity that the House answers to when it comes to impeachment is the voters. If they do something so vile as to offend the majority of voters, they will be voted out in the next election.

Likewise with the Senate. They can choose to remove from office after hearing the "evidence" presented in the Articles of Impeachment", or not. Keep in mind, the only punishment for conviction is removal from office. After the official is removed, then other charges can be filed by the various Courts.

That is why I say the very act of impeachment is a political act, not a judicial act. The only punishment is removal. And since the House of Representatives is the only Government Entity that can bring forth Articles of Impeacment, the decision to do so is based on what ever a majority can decide upon at that time.

All they have to worry about is the wrath of the voters. Period.

As ridiculous as your straw man argument sounds, the answer is "Yes", provided Congress has the numbers and the will to carry the proceedings to a conclusion, Congress could try to impeach a president for any reason they deem necessary.

It's settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" because the House most directly represents the people, and the Constitution does not relegate that power to any other branch. The Senate, of course, must also buy into the proceedings or the charges are not promulgated. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LL, the only entity that the House answers to when it comes to impeachment is the voters. If they do something so vile as to offend the majority of voters, they will be voted out in the next election.

Likewise with the Senate. They can choose to remove from office after hearing the "evidence" presented in the Articles of Impeachment", or not. Keep in mind, the only punishment for conviction is removal from office. After the official is removed, then other charges can be filed by the various Courts.

That is why I say the very act of impeachment is a political act, not a judicial act. The only punishment is removal. And since the House of Representatives is the only Government Entity that can bring forth Articles of Impeacment, the decision to do so is based on what ever a majority can decide upon at that time.

All they have to worry about is the wrath of the voters. Period. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I happen to agree with LL though as most know I claim to be no Constitutional scholar.

Let me ask you two a question , Why if the SC can overturn what they deem a unconstitutional law, can they not overturn what the Court deems an unconstitutional impeachment?

I also happen to agree with those that think it would be political suicide to impeach.

I happen to agree with LL though as most know I claim to be no Constitutional scholar.

Let me ask you two a question , Why if the SC can overturn what they deem a unconstitutional law, can they not overturn what the Court deems an unconstitutional impeachment?

I also happen to agree with those that think it would be political suicide to impeach. Originally Posted by WTF

The Chief Justice already has a role in the impeachment process:

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 3. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

It does not occur often but I have to agree with LLIdiot on this particular issue. If for no other reason than for the entertainment value alone.

With that said, if they want to impeach the President, go for it. If for no other reason than the entertainment value alone. It will be highly entertaining to watch the Repubes preside over what is certain to be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

And in the highly unlikely event the Repubes prove to be successful.

Say hello to President Biden!

It does not occur often but I have to agree with LLIdiot on this issue.

With that said, I say if they want to impeach the President, go for it. It will be entertaining to watch the Repubs preside over a ClusterFuck of epic proportions. Originally Posted by bigtex

Cite in the Constitution where it states some entity other than the House has the authority to begin the impeachment process, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Cite in the Constitution where it states some entity other than the House has the authority to begin the impeachment process, Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If successful, remember to salute President Biden!

Cite in the Constitution where it states some entity other than the House has the authority to begin the impeachment process, Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If successful, remember to salute President Biden!

IBIdiot, please remember to say hello to President Biden! Originally Posted by bigtex

If successful, remember to salute President Biden! Originally Posted by bigtex

Your ignorant retorts are the very definition of deflection, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat. Meanwhile, you stupidly and conspicuously did not even make a feeble attempt to cite where in the Constitution it states some entity other than the House has the authority to begin the impeachment process, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Per Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Man, it is difficult to believe that so many intelligent men can be so ignorant when it comes to impeachment.

What I am stating in my various posts are facts, not opinion. If you can tell me one thing on this subject that I have steted that is not fact, I will gladly retract it.

Impeachment is not a legal Proccess. It is a political Proccess.
The ONLY body that can bring forth Articles of Impeachment, (an indictment, if you must), is The House of Representatives.
The only body that can determine if these Articles of Impeachment are valid and warrant a removal from office is The Senate.
The Chief Justice of The Supreme Court presides if it is a President answering the Articles of Impeachment.
The only punishment issued after an affirmative vote of 2/3 of those Senators present is removal from office.
There is no appeal. The decision of the Senate is final.
Since we are a Republic, if the majority of voters do not agree whith what has transpired, they can choose to vote for another candidate in the next election.

There is an old saying, that it is not a crime to be ignorant. That simply means you have not been presented with facts.
If, however, you are presented with facts, but insist on taking a contrary path, you are just stupid.

As ridiculous as your straw man argument sounds, the answer is "Yes", ....


It's settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" because the House most directly represents the people, and the Constitution does not relegate that power to any other branch. The Senate, of course, must also buy into the proceedings or the charges are not promulgated. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Show me where it is "settled law" .... other than a blog dictionary on the internet....... like a United States Supreme Court case that says ....

"It's settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" "

So, the House impeaches and the Senate convicts a President for being Black, which the House has determined in its "full discretion" (as you say) that to be a Black President is a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" ... and ALL CONCERNED, even the voters, must wait for the next election cycle to remedy the CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION?

Reader's Digest Law at its most ridiculous level.

Show me where it is "settled law" .... other than a blog dictionary on the internet....... like a United States Supreme Court case that says ....

"It's settled law that the House defines "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" "

So, the House impeaches and the Senate convicts a President for being Black, which the House has determined in its "full discretion" (as you say) that to be a Black President is a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" ... and ALL CONCERNED, even the voters, must wait for the next election cycle to remedy the CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION?

Reader's Digest Law at its most ridiculous level. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're the one who needs to support your contention with something other than speculation, LL. The Constitution clearly states who has the sole power to impeach, and the Constitution says it is the House that determines what is an impeachable offense. You cannot produce anything from the Constitution that says differently, LL.

Impeachment is not a legal Proccess. It is a political Proccess.
The ONLY body that can bring forth Articles of Impeachment, (an indictment, if you must), is The House of Representatives.
The only body that can determine if these Articles of Impeachment are valid and warrant a removal from office is The Senate.
The Chief Justice of The Supreme Court presides if it is a President answering the Articles of Impeachment.
The only punishment issued after an affirmative vote of 2/3 of those Senators present is removal from office.
There is no appeal. The decision of the Senate is final.
Since we are a Republic, if the majority of voters do not agree whith what has transpired, they can choose to vote for another candidate in the next election.

There is an old saying, that it is not a crime to be ignorant. That simply means you have not been presented with facts.
If, however, you are presented with facts, but insist on taking a contrary path, you are just stupid. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Those are not ALL "facts." SOME of them are your opinions (in red).

"Impeachment" and "conviction" are legal concepts, because you want it to be "political" IS stupid.