Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: justshutupandtakeit

So, ignoring a Congressional Subpoena is not grounds for impeachment?

Nor is ignoring a Congressional mandate for a "de nuvo" (or whatever it was called - sorry about the spelling here) trial to take place?

Man, if that ain't grounds for impeachment, I sure don't know what is.


351 posted on 04/14/2005 9:15:13 AM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: jstolzen

You are correct. You don't know what is.


354 posted on 04/14/2005 9:19:27 AM PDT by lugsoul (Wild Turkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

To: jstolzen

Since you don't know what de novo means or understand that the Congress has no power to order the courts to do anything you don't understand what happened.

All it could do was expand the courts' jurisidiction so that they could consider a case typically outside that jurisdiction. Thus, it had the constitutional power to vote to allow the district court jurisdiction even though it was a mistake to do it. However it could not tell them How to do it or demand anything of it.

I am not sure about exactly what that "subpoena" meant but whatever it meant it had no bearing on the obvious lack of Congressional authority to impeach a local judge. Congress could vote for contempt of Congress for ignoring a legitimate subpoena. Perhaps a review of the Constitution would clarify your misunderstandings about Congress' powers here.


473 posted on 04/14/2005 11:50:45 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson