Posted on 12/18/2019 7:14:23 PM PST by Helicondelta
Our President counter-punches, HARD, at every lie, and every liar.
I think Nancy is trying to create a Schrödinger's impeachment.
Those versed in quantum physics will recognize the thought-experiment referred to as "Schrödinger's cat". The idea was that some quantum experiments are entirely dictated by chance and that the outcome is not only unknowable before hand but that the particles participating are in neither of two possible states prior to observing them.
In the case of Schrödinger's cat, a quantum experiment is set up such that a cat in an enclosed box is either killed or not killed based on a quantum experiment. The claim is that the cat is neither alive nor dead until the cat is observed.
Nancy Pelosi is attempting to create a Schrödinger's impeachment. She has decided that some future as-yet-to-be-determined situation will dictate whether an impeachment has occurred or has not occurred. Unfortunately for Nancy, that would make HER the determiner of whether or not the President has been impeached. That is not a power that one member of Congress is allowed to have.
Tomorrow McConnell should petition the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an impeachment has occurred. If it has, then demand the articles from Nancy. If it has not, then do nothing except ask Nancy to explain to the House why she has annulled their votes.
Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a very long time...
Why ask the court at all? Just declare that if the Senate doesn’t receive it in 24 hours, it won’t be accepted later and it never happened.
I don't think that is necessarily true. The Constitution gives the power of impeachment to the House. Not to a committee of the House. Not to the majority leader. To the House. Lacking any language in the Constitution requiring a super-majority, then a majority is sufficient.
I don't believe that the House has the authority to delegate their power to Nancy Pelosi, for example. It cannot be that Nancy gets to decide whether or not the President has been impeached. I believe that the Supreme Court could order the documents upon which the impeachment votes were held to be delivered up and provided to the Senate without delay.
To suggest otherwise would call into question whether a President could ever be impeached since it would separate the majority vote from the action that it is intended to accomplish.
The Supreme Court might simultaneously suggest that, in future, the House should prepare itself more thoroughly before taking such steps. There was nothing requiring them to take the vote that they did.
Next page in the Democrat playbook.
The impeachment resolution could be revoked by the next GOP House. One House’s actions aren’t binding on a future House.
The Senate can decide what to do with it just as well as the Supreme Court can. Let San Fran Nan be the one to run to SCOTUS and beg them to make the Senate accept their crap articles after she refused to follow precedent and deliver them promptly.
So are you saying he SHOULD be kicked out if your last sentence is true?
Just asking, not judging.
And I was upset when we abandoned the Kurds.
But one person here was right. They were never fighting for us but for their own home.
We had no treaty with them and awful or not, Turkey is a part of NATO
Eventually Trump changed on that and not everything he is going to do will be what we ALL like.
We can't do that because the Senate does not have the power to ignore an impeachment. The Constitution does not contemplate that an action of the House to impeach would be invisible to the Senate. The Senate is obligated to conduct a trial if the House impeaches. I would claim that the House has impeached and that the Supreme Court could order the immediate delivery of the impeachment documents to the Senate.
At that time the Senate might well view them and vote to dismiss them. The analogy from our criminal courts is that a judge may dismiss charges that do not, in fact, constitute a crime. Or the judge can, after the prosecution presents its case, dismiss the case because, even if everything proven by the prosecution is true, it does not constitute proof that a crime was committed or that the defendant committed the crime.
I would claim that NOTHING can relieve the Senate of their obligation under the Constitution to hold a trial if the House impeaches.
Since I believe that the House has, in fact, impeached, then I would act according to the Constitution. In this case the House would be obligated to deliver the documents. What I am saying is that the legal remedy is to provide what the Senate requires to fulfill their obligation. Not to relieve them of that obligation without a Constitutional amendment.
The question really boils down to whether Trump was impeached today or not. All the media believe he was and I do too.
No. The Senate is free to take it up or not to take it up. What the House wants is irrelevant.
I don’t believe that at all. There is a duty to notify that is part of the process and it has always been done before. I don’t like the idea of kissing Nancy’s ass and fighting her for a notification it is her duty to deliver. I think the Senate should just inform her that they will ignore it if the House does not deliver it by tomorrow at COB. Make the House either deliver it tomorrow, do it over correctly or run to SCOTUS begging.
Possibly, and I hope so. But a Big Lie, repeated often enough, can move public opinion.
Though the Senate may have great latitude in making its rules, I don't believe that they cannot be reviewed by the courts.
Imagine that the Senate, by majority vote, passes a rule that conviction in impeachment trials shall require three-fourths of the Senators present instead of two-thirds. I believe that a court could strike that rule. The rules have to preserve the authority of the Senate and not exceed the authority of the Senate.
I think there may be some Senate rules that disallow rule changes after the beginning of the session of Congress. I don't believe that such a rule is Constitutional. The Senate has the authority to change its rules at any time.
I think the so-called "nuclear option" was exercised in the middle of a session and eliminated the filibuster for many federal judge confirmations.
I don't think the Senate has the authority to limit its own authority to make its own rules. Sort of a magic lamp "no wishing for more wishes" kind of thing.
Basically, in physics it’s the Fact of the Matter theory. (Ball or strike argument). The tangible solution is Never Receive or “accept” such a “call” until 2024,TIME DELAY.
This whole charade is only designed to set up the narrative that Trump deserved to be removed from office but is protected by the Republicans. All to justify massive voter fraud in 2020...
From that Constitution thingy: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:"
Well, ... actually the language isn't as clear cut as I thought it was. It does appear that a majority of the Senate could simply reject the articles of impeachment. That actually works to Nancy's advantage. She wants a President who has been impeached and not acquitted. Your interpretation would do that.
I like my way better. That is, use the Supreme Court to force Nancy's hand. Failure on her part to supply the documents denies the Senate the opportunity to exercise their Constitutional power to hold the trial. That doesn't stop them from dismissing later on.
We certainly live in interesting times.
In other words “you delay the transmission, I (we) delay the reception” for 5 years. Which shutdowns any future articles they already are planning.
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.