- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
- Messages
- 882
- Points
- 158
Saw that earlier and it annoys me why on the first day in office he did that, f***ing old fool. Lots of jobs lost.
Politics The Biden thread
- Thread starter primer
- Start date
Saw that earlier and it annoys me why on the first day in office he did that, f***ing old fool. Lots of jobs lost.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 705
- Points
- 178
And thats written where?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2018
- Messages
- 8,896
- Points
- 348
This is disgraceful . Parents are being sent this Falsely claiming those who par took on the 6th ... Read for yourselves ..
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2018
- Messages
- 8,896
- Points
- 348
Anyone seen the footage of him sigining Exec Orders and he says ...
I don't know what am sigining ... Sign it anyways another voice is hear saying ..
Seen it on insta
I don't know what am sigining ... Sign it anyways another voice is hear saying ..
Seen it on insta
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 705
- Points
- 178
So which part exactly is the problem?
The language used? or that it looks like unsolicited junk mail?
The part that endorses brainwashing children about what interpretation of the events has to be stuffed down their throats, and that they're surrounded by terrorists and white supremacists.
Dystopian stuff.
Similar stuff again as in Ukraine after 2014.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 12,485
- Points
- 338
That's the law. The Constitution. And, incidentally, History.
The principal argument against allowing post-presidential impeachment is that the Constitution does not make private citizens subject to impeachment. The founders rejected the British model that allowed Parliament to impeach anyone, except for the King, and so they limited impeachment to certain public officials, including presidents.
Subjecting a president to impeachment after he has returned to his private life would, seemingly according to this logic, violate this basic constitutional principle. The Constitution itself applies only to governmental not private action.
No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached.
Secretary of War William W. Belknap was indisputably guilty of numerous impeachable offenses, to which he confessed as he resigned his office hours before the House unanimously impeached him in 1876. The Senate voted in favor of a procedural motion affirming its jurisdiction to try Belknap’s impeachment. But two dozen senators who believed he was guilty voted to acquit on jurisdictional grounds. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent.
Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds."
A more compelling precedent is the House’s decision not to impeach Richard Nixon. After he left office in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction, there was no movement to continue the process.
The Supreme Court emphasized that “the impeachment powers” were exclusively entrusted to Congress with no role for judicial review. The court there was focused on the question of whether the court could review what the Senate understood to be a trial.
Moreover, the Supreme Court might take the view that the jurisdictional question in the Trump case does not raise the kind of finality questions that worried the court in Nixon. What if a Senate convicted and purportedly removed a president and the "president" filed motions in court seeking to have that verdict overturned? The prospect of judicial review could create the risk of a constitutional crisis in which the country did not know who was properly exercising the powers of the president.
In Trump’s particular case, there is no such risk. If the Supreme Court reviewed the results of a Senate trial of a former president, there would be no risk of casting doubt on the chain of command in the executive branch. If the House and Senate were to purport to impeach, convict and disqualify a private citizen who had never held political office, the justices might well think that Congress was operating outside the bounds of any credible reading of the constitutional impeachment power and that judicial intervention would pose no real risk of undercutting the core uses of that power and the operation of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
The claim that the Senate can hold an impeachment trial for a former president is not necessarily wrong though. It is at most a difficult question, and one that has historical precedent behind it. Nonetheless, Judge Luttig asserts that "only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can impeach a president who has left office prior to its attempted impeachment of him."
Setting aside the apparent confusion of impeachment by the House with a Senate trial on impeachment charges in the Senate, it is not at all evident why "only the Supreme Court" can answer such a question. Traditionally, it was the Senate as the constitutionally designated court of impeachment that has had the final say over constitutional questions regarding the impeachment power. To get to Judge Luttig’s result, the Supreme Court would have to conclude that, even on close constitutional questions relating to the impeachment power, the Senate as the constitutional court of impeachment is an inferior tribunal to the Supreme Court. The court would run the risk of upending the constitutional system by claiming judicial supremacy over one component of the most awesome and delicate authority granted to Congress.
The impeachment power, like any other constitutional power, can be abused. The Senate sits in judgment of whether the House has misused its sole power to impeach federal officers. The people sit in judgment of whether the House and the Senate together have properly wielded this most formidable constitutional weapon.
For the Democrats to seek revenge against Donald Trump would set a terrible precedent, distract from President Biden’s agenda, and make it hard to heal the country.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11302
Guest
I'd venture to say it's both?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 12,485
- Points
- 338
Yes, it is true:
Twitter Won’t Let Biden Inherit Trump’s @POTUS Followers, Angering His Team
Biden, who won’t get any followers from Trump’s POTUS account, has started his own President-elect account.
www.forbes.com
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
- Messages
- 1,067
- Points
- 179
This is not a good image with which to start a Saturday morning. I almost lost my breakfast.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
- Messages
- 1,067
- Points
- 179
I suspect that they don't want the specter of having fewer twitter followers than Trump had. They shouldn't worry about that however. It's easy enough to get some fake followers to make things look better.
Yes, it is true:
Twitter Won’t Let Biden Inherit Trump’s @POTUS Followers, Angering His Team
Biden, who won’t get any followers from Trump’s POTUS account, has started his own President-elect account.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
- Messages
- 882
- Points
- 158
where the throw up button?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 12,485
- Points
- 338
I know I should tag someone on that post...
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 12,485
- Points
- 338
Biden Stops Trump Order To Slash Price Of Insulin, EpiPen
President Joe Biden’s United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Thursday stopped executive orders from his predecessor designed to significantly lower prescription drug prices for Americans, including insulin and epinephrine. The new administration will apparently...
Yeah, I really should tag someone...
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 12,485
- Points
- 338
Hey!
3 days in!
Only 1457 days left!
3 days in!
Only 1457 days left!
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 12,485
- Points
- 338
Biden's early approach to virus: Underpromise, overdeliver
WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a proven political strategy: Underpromise and overdeliver. President Joe Biden, in his first three days in office, has painted a bleak picture of the country's immediate future, warning Americans that it will take months, not weeks, to reorient a nation facing a historic...
apnews.com
Similar threads
