Posted on 05/25/2019 5:01:29 AM PDT by Saveourcountry
If President Trump has not committed any Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, then it would be unconstitutional to impeach him just for politics, wouldn't it? What am I missing here? I mean, have they even uncovered a misdemeanor? Has he had a traffic ticket or something? The constitution clearly sets the grounds for impeachment, and it is pretty broad, but to me, it doesn't look like they have any grounds.
Am I wrong to believe that if they go ahead and impeach him for political reasons without any sort of crime whatsoever that the impeachment could be overturned on a constitutional basis?
Am I wrong to believe that if they go ahead and impeach him for political reasons without any sort of crime whatsoever that the impeachment could be overturned on a constitutional basis?
Impeach is available to remove a President if the majority in the house and senate believe it is necessary (a very high bar to get over) but in the end impeach is a political procedure.
So to answer your question is that the house could impeach a President for any reason they wish and it would not be unconstitutional.
“It sounds like you think a Romney or 2 turncoats could determine it. “
Not at all. I was just pointing out that the House can do whatever it wants. And, when it gets to the Senate, there will be turncoats*. I think that not only is Trump safe from impeachment, but impeachment will backfire as badly for Democrats as the Clinton one did for Republicans.
* Actually, turncoat is probably not the right term for Collins and Romney. Q-ships might be better.
crime
noun
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
mis·de·mean·or
noun
a minor wrongdoing.
LAW
A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, and a felony one of high seriousness. ... In the United States, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable with incarceration for one year or less to be a misdemeanor. All other crimes are considered felonies.
Again. Irrelevant. Johnson was not removed from office. Worst case is that he has an * by his name.....
According to the history books being planned, Trump already has an * by his name, and those of us who voted for him are all racists, bigots, and deplorable citizens.
Who cares what the history books say?
“You do not understand the Constitution. Our Constitution has several checks and balances built into it. Impeachment is one such check. The Constitution is a little vague on what is meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors” and I think there was a reason for that.”
________________________________________________________
I guess I don’t understand it, then, since it doesn’t say that Congress can impeach for any reason it likes. A crime, even a misdemeanor is against the law. So, to me, it seems that the constitution requires that the person that is being impeached has broken the law in some way.
If the constitution said “impeach willy nilly” and 2/3 of the Senate have to agree, then that would make more sense. But it doesn’t. It clearly states the grounds for impeachment. Both Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson had broken the law prior to impeachment, therefore following the grounds outlined in the constitution. This political show doesn’t follow the constitution at all.
The Constitution clearly says natural born citizen.
Obama is not one.
It is important for the protection of the office of the President. If an impeachment takes placed based on no crime - then every future president from here on out can be impeached once the other side gains a majority in the house. It undermines the office of the president and should not be tolerated - even if it helps President Trump in the long run, it should never be allowed to happen.
Do you honestly believe the Senate won’t convict? I count 61 votes right now FOR impeachment in the Senate. All the Democrats (47) will vote yes, joined by Sasse, Romney, Murkowski, Collins and the other RINOs, including McConnell! Heck, it would even be payback time for Cruz and Rubio.
When it gets to the Senate, all bets are off. Keep your powder dry.
thanks...
Impeachment is a political tool...there is no punishment attached except removal from office upon conviction and no longer being allowed to hold a position of honor in the U.S/
can’t mention felony as apart of the definition as it’s already mentioned...
“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are in addition to felonies...
it’s whatever the House says it is...
The House can definitely impeach over shaving. All that needs to be done is use some “process” crime. Political prosecutors do that all the time. Politicians and POTUS’s commit potential process crimes every day in office. THe charge is the process crime, while the real reason is whatever they feel like - shaving in this scenario.
If these bastards impeach our President for absolutely NO cause other than the fact that they lost an election to him, isn’t that sedition and couldn’t each and every one of them who votes for it be brought up on charges? I’m serious.
Or have they already covered that base by passing some law making themselves immune to have to follow laws?
The point I was trying to make..and did so badly perhaps...is that there seems to be no specific guidelines spelled out regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense and so the courts would choose *not* to get involved.
Unless I'm mistaken...and I certainly could be...the President has no "Constitutional right" not to be impeached.
Speaking for Texas, I assure you Cruz will not vote to convict based upon the evidence currently known.
Cornyn may be a squish, but he will not vote to convict either.
So the question becomes, how do the Dems get to 67?
> This confuses me because the constitution says a president can only be impeached for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. <
As others of noted, the House can impeach for any old reason. But they’ll need to cover their actions with some sort of explanation. The key is the phrase “High Crimes”. Such crimes include abuse of authority and dereliction of duty.
The House will go that route. It will be 100% repugnant and 100% constitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States
The office of the Presidency lost all respectful demeanor with #42 and #44.
Rule by impeachment is fine with me. As long as Trump can continue to do what he is doing, I will be content to not worry what the Dems do.
But, clearly “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are crimes. Both are crimes large and small, actual crimes. The house cannot say that they consider something he has done to be a crime if it is not already against the law. That would be ridiculous.
A lot of ink got wasted debating the meaning of “High Crimes & Misdemeanors” during the Clinton years. It basically comes down to what the House leaders thing will fly in a Senate trial. “Misdemeanors” is a word that probably had a specific meaning to the framers, but as we’ve seen in any Constitutional question involving the Democrats, they twist language so that they can get what they want. They also have no interest in the intent of the framers.
So yes, like another poster said, “they could impeach Trump if they don’t like the way he shaves in the morning.”
> When it gets to the Senate, all bets are off. <
I tend to agree with you. It was obvious that Bill Clinton was not going to be convicted in the Senate.That whole thing was just political theater.
But the Deep State really, really resents Trump. Caesar walked among his “friends” in the Roman Senate. Then all of a sudden the knives came out.
If I had to bet today, I’d bet that the House would impeach, but the Senate would not convict. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on that. (I would have bet the farm in Clinton’s case.)
Ok, thank you. Now I understand. This phrase was put in to say “abusing the power of your office” and doesn’t have to actually be a crime. Clearly, I didn’t understand the original intent.
The legal system is designed to produce ‘justice’ but it is imperfect. All that you can really guarantee is a “decision”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.