ADVERTISEMENT

Article II, Section 4

SoMplsHawkI

SoMplsHawkI

HR Heisman
Apr 20, 2006
8,824
6,911
113
Did the SC just render the Impeachment Clause impotent?

Let's say Biden orders the Sec Of Ed to destroy all student loan records (insert dementia joke to yourself here) and then pardons him for the criminal act. That, to me is a high crime. He's immune, right? Official act, right?
 
SoMplsHawkI said:
Did the SC just render the Impeachment Clause impotent?

Let's say Biden orders the Sec Of Ed to destroy all student loan records (insert dementia joke to yourself here) and then pardons him for the criminal act. That, to me is a high crime. He's immune, right? Official act, right?
Click to expand...
uh no. he can be impeached ('conviction' within the clause is the act of the senate) and removed from office. they were quite clear about that in addressing trump's defense of 'impeachment first'. (Incidentally, a 'high crime' in the impeachment context is simply whatever the house says it is, and need not be an actual crime in 18 usc, hence the silly 'dereliction of duty' impeachments of recent years)
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2 and Scruddy
Aardvark86 said:
uh no. he can be impeached ('conviction' within the clause is the act of the senate) and removed from office. they were quite clear about that in addressing trump's defense of 'impeachment first'. (Incidentally, a 'high crime' in the impeachment context is simply whatever the house says it is, and need not be an actual crime in 18 usc, hence the silly 'dereliction of duty' impeachments of recent years)
Click to expand...
This ^

Impeachment is a tool to remove an official from office. It's separate from criminal prosecution.
 
SoMplsHawkI said:
Did the SC just render the Impeachment Clause impotent?

Let's say Biden orders the Sec Of Ed to destroy all student loan records (insert dementia joke to yourself here) and then pardons him for the criminal act. That, to me is a high crime. He's immune, right? Official act, right?
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have to even pardon himself. Just order the secretary of education to do it and then pardon the secretary of education.

Any communication with a cabinet member is allowed and courts are not allowed to look at motive or content.

The president is essentially immune from any conspiracy crime as long as they are conspiring with a cabinet member.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: h-hawk and BelemNole
tumorboy said:
Impeachment is already irrelevant. The Senate will always be near 50/50. Impossible to get double digits of the Presidents party to convict. Neither side will give up power.
Click to expand...

This is why we need to scrap the whole thing and have a redo where we have proportional representation.

We need to go out of our way to get rid of the 2 party system because the 2 party system is what has caused all of our political problems for ages now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattymoknows, nelly02, Firekirknow and 1 other person
Hoosierhawkeye said:
This is why we need to scrap the whole thing and have a redo where we have proportional representation.

We need to go out of our way to get rid of the 2 party system because the 2 party system is what has caused all of our political problems for ages now.
Click to expand...
Need a mechanism that calls for new elections. Honestly the whole primary season isn’t needed. Give us 6 weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
St. Louis Hawk said:
Still got your A material.

When we buying O’Connell’s?
Click to expand...
Been a while since I've been out by tower Grove, I'll definitely take you up on that one of these days. I used to go to that burger joint next to the Amsterdam tavern all the time before they closed. Was the best burger in st louis once upon a time :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. Louis Hawk
Scruddy said:
Been a while since I've been out by tower Grove, I'll definitely take you up on that one of these days. I used to go to that burger joint next to the Amsterdam tavern all the time before they closed. Was the best burger in st louis once upon a time :(
Click to expand...

I recall that place. Good burger.

I was a big fan of Dooley’s before they closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruddy
tumorboy said:
Need a mechanism that calls for new elections. Honestly the whole primary season isn’t needed. Give us 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

I think snap elections when done right can be a good thing. The trick is doing them right. The UK and Canada method are bad IMO. Their heads of government just call them when their polling numbers are high to give them a boost in seats and a fresh 5 year term. That's partially why a party can retain control in these countries for like 15 years.

Ideally you have a method to call for snap elections when necessary but it's harder to do then the head of government just deciding to do it on a whim. I would also suggest that maybe snap elections shouldn't give you a fresh term. Instead maybe if you call for a snap election 2.5 years into a 5 year term, the election is only for people to fill those seats for the next 2.5 years. That way at the very least it doesn't give you a fresh term dropping the incentives to use it as much.

The primary season is kind of dumb. I think parties should just decide their candidates internally through whatever method they think is best. It doesn't have to involve the government hosting an official election for these parties.
 
tumorboy said:
Impeachment is already irrelevant. The Senate will always be near 50/50. Impossible to get double digits of the Presidents party to convict. Neither side will give up power.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is irrelevant until the GOP stops becoming a cult.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
SoMplsHawkI said:
Did the SC just render the Impeachment Clause impotent?

Let's say Biden orders the Sec Of Ed to destroy all student loan records (insert dementia joke to yourself here) and then pardons him for the criminal act. That, to me is a high crime. He's immune, right? Official act, right?
Click to expand...
What would you have had the Supreme Court rule instead? Think about future consequences for presidents of both parties. Immunity already exists for tort cases it was simply extended to criminal cases. Ya, I know, but Trump.:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruddy
SoMplsHawkI said:
My question is about what the SC did not what they should've done. You answer seems to indicate that you agree with me that impeachment is now off the table.
Click to expand...
No I do not agree with you and neither does anyone else in the legal community.
 
SoMplsHawkI said:
Who do you know in the legal community? Your parole officer?
Click to expand...
In an effort to put this silliness to bed, I'll bet you $1000 that if (i) biden or trump is impeached by the house and removed from office by a senate conviction, and (ii) they appeal to the SCOTUS on the ground that they were immune from the 'high crime' for which they impeached under the reasoning of Trump, then (iii) Scotus will reject the appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a presidential impeachment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85 and Rifler
Aardvark86 said:
In an effort to put this silliness to bed, I'll bet you $1000 that if (i) biden or trump is impeached by the house and removed from office by a senate conviction, and (ii) they appeal to the SCOTUS on the ground that they were immune from the 'high crime' for which they impeached under the reasoning of Trump, then (iii) Scotus will reject the appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a presidential impeachment.
Click to expand...
How about we make it $10,000 that no impeachment would ever take place because the president would criminally (with no repurcussions because he's immune) and successfully obstruct it? Article 4 is now a solution in search of a problem. How silly is that?
 
Impeachment is not done by the judicial branch, although the Chief Justice presides. In no way would this be implied to pertain
 
SoMplsHawkI said:
How about we make it $10,000 that no impeachment would ever take place because the president would criminally (with no repurcussions because he's immune) and successfully obstruct it? Article 4 is now a solution in search of a problem. How silly is that?
Click to expand...
define criminally and successfully obstruct it, and i might take you up on that. because somehow, i have a feeling, say, a D-controlled house might sorta do its own thing to a president trump, and an r controlled house might sorta do its own thing to a president [insert d name here]. because if you have not noticed, that's unfortunately the way we roll here. So tell me what specific kind of criminal obstruction you're proposing - assassination? national guards blocking the house from beginning its session? something else? Because if i'm considering a 10k bet, i don't want to be quibbling over semantics when it comes time for me to collect.
 
Aardvark86 said:
define criminally and successfully obstruct it, and i might take you up on that. because somehow, i have a feeling, say, a D-controlled house might sorta do its own thing to a president trump, and an r controlled house might sorta do its own thing to a president [insert d name here]. because if you have not noticed, that's unfortunately the way we roll here. So tell me what specific kind of criminal obstruction you're proposing - assassination? national guards blocking the house from beginning its session? something else? Because if i'm considering a 10k bet, i don't want to be quibbling over semantics when it comes time for me to collect.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling semantics aren't the issue.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Aardvark86
tumorboy said:
Impeachment is already irrelevant. The Senate will always be near 50/50. Impossible to get double digits of the Presidents party to convict. Neither side will give up power.
Click to expand...
That may change this election. GOP may build a little bit of cushion, like 54-56 senators. Blue states are in deep trouble though. In 2030, they expect to lose 13 EC college votes to solid red states, and then again in 2040, I expect it will be another 13-15 EC votes switch to red states. Effectively, starting with the 2032 POTUS election, I believe that red states will pretty much have the 270 votes to win before the race even starts, and definitely by 2040 they will have it. Now you know why democrats want illegals to sneak in so they can somehow get them legal to vote, without illegals, the Dems have no future.
 
CeMar_Clone said:
That may change this election. GOP may build a little bit of cushion, like 54-56 senators. Blue states are in deep trouble though. In 2030, they expect to lose 13 EC college votes to solid red states, and then again in 2040, I expect it will be another 13-15 EC votes switch to red states. Effectively, starting with the 2032 POTUS election, I believe that red states will pretty much have the 270 votes to win before the race even starts, and definitely by 2040 they will have it. Now you know why democrats want illegals to sneak in so they can somehow get them legal to vote, without illegals, the Dems have no future.
Click to expand...
Still need 66 to convict. Double digits from either party near impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Opinion Trump has it all wrong: He needs someone else to be president

Replies
3
Views
110
Off Topic
BioHawk
BioHawk
cigaretteman

Should Supreme Court disqualify Trump from running? First Lawsuit Filed

Replies
37
Views
512
Off Topic
Huey Grey
Huey Grey
cigaretteman

Major News Outlets Urge U.S. to Drop Its Charges Against Assange

Replies
1
Views
113
Off Topic
Finance85
Finance85
cigaretteman

The Mysteries of Mar-a-Lago Will Not Be Hidden Forever

Replies
2
Views
308
Off Topic
lucas80
lucas80
cigaretteman

Norm Eisen: Cassidy Hutchinson Changes Everything

Replies
0
Views
184
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back