Replies

The problem with that assertion is that it is neither factual nor an acceptable exercise in logic. Why? Because it arbitrarily assumes that the only means by which Congress can reject an action of the President that it doesn't like is by impeaching him - a logical absurdity on its face, especially given that only two presidents have ever been impeached. Applying your argument consistently one could presume upon this latter fact that only two presidents have ever been substantively opposed by Congress on anything, and we know that proposition to be inherently false.

I love it when you guys try to use 'logic'!

If what Lincoln was doing was unconsitutional they should have impeached him-period.

The Separation of powers was made that each branch would be jealous of its power.

Clearly Congress did not feel threatened by Lincoln's actions.

The fact that only two Presidents have been impeached is irrevelent, that was the power that Congress had and did not use.

I love it when you guys try to use 'logic'! If what Lincoln was doing was unconsitutional they should have impeached him-period.

There were many things that Bill Clinton did that reasonable persons have characterized as unconstitutional. Yet he was only impeached over one action, which was not a matter of constitutionality but rather criminal conduct. Does that mean Clinton did nothing wrong in all of those other matters?

The Supreme Court has stricken down dozens of executive orders and actions as unconstitutional as well. Yet Congress has never impeached a president for one. Does that mean those other presidents did nothing wrong either?

As noted, your assumptions about impeachment are simply absurd. They are premised upon the faulty notion that impeachment is the only voice of recourse by Congress to indicate that it does not wholly endorse and improve of an executive's action.

The Separation of powers was made that each branch would be jealous of its power.

Which would also explain why the judicial branch asserted its position on habeas corpus in the face of outright harassment from the executive branch and why Congress asserted its position by killing Lincoln's bill to suspend habeas corpus.

Clearly Congress did not feel threatened by Lincoln's actions.

Then what was all that business over killing his suspension bill about? Fun and games? Boredom?

The fact that only two Presidents have been impeached is irrevelent

If you are making the argument that Congress' only recourse of opposition against the action of a president is impeachment - and you are - it's relevence is both necessary and inherent to the situation, as it entails the consequence of asserting that only two presidents have ever been opposed by Congress - an assertion that is outright absurd, much as your assumption is.