Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

I have posted what I am going to post on the topic ....

.. you keep citing the Free Dictionary and dead commentaries. OK?

May be you didn't read it the 3rd time ...

Here's what the Current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted:

"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176." Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution grants the power to impeach to Congress; hence, Congress and Congress alone has the power to impeach without judicial review -- especially since the Chief Justice is already a designated participant in such proceedings. Marbury vs Madison does not apply because during impeachment proceedings, Congress is in fact exercising a power delineated to Congress by the Constitution. Maybe you didn't read it for the umpteenth time, but here's what the Constitution says, LL:

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.

BTW, LL, Story's Constitutional analysis trumps your misuse of Roberts.

But the shutdown DIDN'T HURT THE BRAND. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That can be said about anything in regards to either party over time. Fuck Nixon did not hurt the Republican brand because Reagan got elected. Carter did not hurt the Dem's because Clinton got elected.

Impeachment is not the will of the majority. ..How about that? Will you agree that the majority of folks will not agree with you on this issue including a significant number in the GOP.

BTW, LL, Story's Constitutional analysis trumps your misuse of Roberts. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Only on Eccie in this thread and in your mind.

Roberts is on the bench and the worms finished with Story long ago.

If you were the Coach of the Houston Texans, they'd win every game with you making the calls!!!

Welcome to the New Real World of Laws and Judges.

And the larger you make the letters doesn't make it any more correct.

Impeachment is not the will of the majority. ..How about that? Will you agree that the majority of folks will not agree with you on this issue including a significant number in the GOP. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF while we can still agree on this one topic (perhaps some others, like liking pussy) if you will read carefully through all the bold, bad-ass, shouting letters from "the other side" (we'll call them "the IMPEACHERS") you will notice a thread ..... that is consistent with the President even as we post ....

.. a fundamental belief they possess unbridled authority to exercise some implied right to impose their will on others with impunity irrespective of the "law of the land" and the "pronouncements" of the SCOTUS, who has historically for over 200 years been the final arbiter of the meaning and scope of legislative, executive, and judicial action.

They are no better than the "devil' they seek to dethrown.

What I want to know is why the only ones talking about wanting impeachment or government shutdowns are the dimocraps.

How can they blame Republicans for something they want?

Makes no sense.

What I want to know is why the only ones talking about wanting impeachment or government shutdowns are the dimocraps. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Well, actually the Dems are not the only ones mouthing off about it, but ..

the reason (I understand) they ARE (the ones that are) is to stir up the Obaminable Lovers, congest the airways with negatives about the bad old party, and create noise to drown out the message of the loyal opposition.

Apparently there are actually some "conservatives" entertaining the idea.

There's a Golden Opportunity to crank things up for a 18 month sprint beginning in Jan. ... just a little over a month away ... and there is a 'debate' in progressing about lawsuits and impeachments ...

.... reacting and not acting.

I knew the Democrats weren't going to do anything in Congress, so I have been hoping the Republicans would carry the water and make things happen to help the country along and move in a positive direction until some of this "gotcha" shit gets flushed and some folks get in place to do the job the taxpayers hired them to do. They were not hired to sue and impeach.

What I want to know is why the only ones talking about wanting impeachment or government shutdowns are the dimocraps.

How can they blame Republicans for something they want?

Makes no sense. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Just because your enemy wants you to jump off a cliff does not make it his fault if you are stupid enough to do so.

Well, actually the Dems are not the only ones mouthing off about it, but ..

the reason (I understand) they ARE (the ones that are) is to stir up the Obaminable Lovers, congest the airways with negatives about the bad old party, and create noise to drown out the message of the loyal opposition.

Apparently there are actually some "conservatives" entertaining the idea.

There's a Golden Opportunity to crank things up for a 18 month sprint beginning in Jan. ... just a little over a month away ... and there is a 'debate' in progressing about lawsuits and impeachments ...

.... reacting and not acting.

I knew the Democrats weren't going to do anything in Congress, so I have been hoping the Republicans would carry the water and make things happen to help the country along and move in a positive direction until some of this "gotcha" shit gets flushed and some folks get in place to do the job the taxpayers hired them to do. They were not hired to sue and impeach. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I am of the opinion that political impeachment is done in the voting booth. Criminal impeachment is what Congress is for. I believe that is what the Roberts Court would decide should they have to. I also believe they will not have to. I could be wrong....The folks on the left sure want to see the GOP do something that stupid but the grownups in the GOP have taken back control and impeachment will not happen IMHO.



.

Criminal impeachment is what Congress is for. I believe that is what the Roberts Court would decide should they have to. Originally Posted by WTF

My point has been in this thread .... the SCOTUS may review those decisions.

The warning shot was fired across the Congressional bow.

If you want to hang your hat.... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's not my "hat" that is going to be hanging, so I'm unconcerned and equally unimpressed with your assessment of my scholarly knowledge. But enjoy your self-aggrandizement, and presumptive marginalizing. Whether Roberts is a scholar or not is inconsequential to the outcome, but you already know that Roberts doesn't think or write in a vacuum while he cites valid case law for his position on the Court's authority to oversee Congressional action, as well as Executive action.

So, I assume you agree that Congress CAN impeach and convict Obaminable for being a Black man while serving as President, if Congress wishes to do so.

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the only "punishment" handed down upon the Senate affirming the Articles of Impeachment is removal from office.

In the next sentence, it states that then other charges may then be brought forth by the appropriate authority according to the law.

No where does it state that The Supreme Court has any say so in the matter at all, aside from the one sentence where it states that the Chief Justice shall preside over the impeachment trial in the Senate.

If Justice Roberts, or any other member of the Judicial Branch, attempted to counteract the Constitutional Authority of The Congress in matters of impeachment, they themselves might also be impeached by the House for overstepping their Authority as granted in The Constitution.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has no more business granting himself, or The Court, powers not granted in the Constitution than the President, or Congress, does.

Just a thought.

If Justice Roberts, or any other member of the Judicial Branch, attempted to counteract the Constitutional Authority of The Congress in matters of impeachment, they themselves might also be impeached by the House for overstepping their Authority as granted in The Constitution.

Just a thought. Originally Posted by Jackie S

A fleeting one at that ...

Article III, Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,.... "

The impeachment and conviction of a President is ..

...... a case "arising under this Constitution" .... with

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, .... "

That phrase is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

I have never posted that the Supreme Court could or should conduct a trial. I have only posted that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction to conduct an appellate review of the proceedings on the basis that Congress exceeded its authority.

It's not about Roberts ... he's just the messenger. It's about the Court's jurisdiction under the Constitution .... and to assure that the requirements of the Constitution are enforced and implemented before the executive or legislative branch can take action or set it aside after they do if it is taken without the authority to do so.

There's no value in demonizing Roberts ... he doesn't act alone or in a vacuum (as I mentioned before) ... and I never posted Roberts would do anything on his own without counsel from other justices ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

This decision seems to answer many of these questions.

Only on Eccie in this thread and in your mind.

Roberts is on the bench and the worms finished with Story long ago.

If you were the Coach of the Houston Texans, they'd win every game with you making the calls!!!

Welcome to the New Real World of Laws and Judges.

And the larger you make the letters doesn't make it any more correct. Originally Posted by LexusLover

In the real world, LL, in that last presidential impeachment proceedings -- Slick Willie the Perjurying Sexual Predator's -- it was Joseph Story's analysis of the Founder's intent that was quoted and cited; not yours.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

This decision seems to answer many of these questions. Originally Posted by Jackie S

+1 Excellent find, Jackie.

The language and structure of Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose-that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried-the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone. Nixon's attempts to negate the significance of "sole" are unavailing, while his alternative reading of the word as requiring impeachment only by the full Senate is unnatural and would impose on the Senate additional procedural requirements that would be inconsistent with the three express limitations that the Clause sets out. A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../224/case.html

WTF while we can still agree on this one topic (perhaps some others, like liking pussy) if you will read carefully through all the bold, bad-ass, shouting letters from "the other side" (we'll call them "the IMPEACHERS") you will notice a thread ..... that is consistent with the President even as we post ....

.. a fundamental belief they possess unbridled authority to exercise some implied right to impose their will on others with impunity irrespective of the "law of the land" and the "pronouncements" of the SCOTUS, who has historically for over 200 years been the final arbiter of the meaning and scope of legislative, executive, and judicial action.

They are no better than the "devil' they seek to dethrown. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution is the "law of the land", LL, and there is nothing "implied" and there is no ambiguity about who, under the Constitution, has the "sole power to impeach". And it ain't the judiciary.

So, I assume you agree that Congress CAN impeach and convict Obaminable for being a Black man while serving as President, if Congress wishes to do so. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Seriously? Are you WPF? Bringing up an absurdity in order to prove your point? No need to respond to my other questions. But if you can, please cite some authority on point that supports judicial review of impeachment.