Posted on 12/16/2019 7:28:24 AM PST by Liberty7732
The Senate should REFUSE to hear the case, as it is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in your post.
SEND IT BACK to the House. If they cannot find high crimes or misdemeanors, they should not attempt to submit it again.
End of impeachment!
This impeachment nonsense is not some kind of political argument between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.
This impeachment baloney is the leaders of the Democrat Party using the threat of impeachment to try to keep anyone from investigating their crimes.
It’s a Democrat stall and smokescreen operation to try to keep their leaders from being rightfully punished for the crimes that they have committed.
Comes from seven decades of allowing this behavior to flourish with out consequences.
The Democrat Party has paid off our judges and government employees, especially law enforcement, to look the other way and protect the Democrat Party leaders as they steal from our treasuries.
I agree. For the Senate to proceed with a trial based on an unconstitutional impeachment delivered from the House would be just another unconstitutional act flowing from this political travesty.
Lost me there!
The remedy against partisan impeachment is an narrow article two amendment that moves the standard off 50%+1 or a rebuke by the American People of the abusers of partisan impeachment against Trump which seems unlikely because of what party is pursuing it and how the Media will support it.
What happens if the Senate votes to convict, but it is less than the 2/3 required by the Constitution? First off, the Communist traitors will holler and scream that he was convicted but won’t leave office. New article of impeachment.
Second, they will criticize the Republicans in the Senate of being biased and the vote was illegitimate. One house against the other; one party against the other. Physical violence.
Finally, there will be a push to amend the Constitution for 51% conviction in the Senate.
The Chief Justice should do this. It's one of the things judges do sometimes. The Chief Justice isn't supposed to act as a ventriloquist's dummy.
ML/NJ
Lost me there!
It's absolutely the case, although somewhat obscured by the 17th amendment. This nation is the United States... not the United Peoples.
Just a technicality, it's the people that elect the President.
“Senators are representatives of their State as a whole, not the people of their State and not themselves”
Senators are elected by the people, not an electoral college, so I find fallacy in this statement.
If the state’s Governor appointed the Senators, then I would concur.
Not allowing our Reps to take part in the sham would be a start.
If one-person is one-vote, then I’d agree, the people elect the president.
Thank goodness, that it’s not the case, or Canky would now be POTUS.
With a popular vote by state, it is the state that essentially elects the president.
It is the State legislatures that originally selected Senators. With the 17th, we no longer have Senators... they are Sinators.
This point is a great rationale to move the Convention of States to fruition. Repeal the 17th, among a few other big items, to restore the Republic and the Constitution.
McConnell should just say this is an invalid impeachment cite the reasons For example The Rats had two past precedent to follow, both allowed the contending sides to have their say. The Rats didn’t do that, presented a one-sided partisan impeachment. So I am throwing it out!’. O course the rats and media will howl. McConnell’s answer should be ‘Make it an issue in 2020 and run on that!’. Everyone normal will be happy its off the tube and its a losing issue to run on ! To do any more gives it credence!
Exactly. By participating, they have legitimized not only an illegitimate proceeding, but a totally unconstitutional one at that.
#4 of “four specific crimes” is “misdemeanors?” I think not. If even misdemeanors are impeachable, why have a list? Nor is “misdemeanors” at all specific.
A technicality, for sure, but an important one. The liberals know this. That’s why they want popular vote instead of Electoral College.
Point trying to be made is this - we vote for ELECTORS who pledge to vote for a particular candidate. It is NOT against the law for them to vote otherwise if there are not enough votes to put someone over the top on the first round of Electoral College voting. Could easily happen with a popular third-party candidate.
I think it was actually expected in the first Presidential elections, when “parties” were not really defined. As a matter of fact, John Adams was the first Vice-President because he came in SECOND to Washington - They were both running for President and there were no “package deals” of Pres/VP early on. He got the second most votes in the Electoral College, beating out John Hancock. He actually did not agree with Washington on several things, and worked against him.
Now that we have the parties which George Washington, among others, warned us about, it absolutely does appear that the people elect the President. But, that’s not the case. We actually elect a delegation from our state to go and vote, trusting they will look after our interests on the state level. Look at the ballot in 2020. The candidate’s name is in big letters, but the pledged Electors’ names should be printed there next to where you put your “X”.
Now to the reason the libs want popular vote instead of Electoral College: Senators were originally selected by State Legislatures - to look after our interests at the State level. Until we were stupid enough to pass the 17th amendment to the Constitution... You see what popular vote has done to THAT...
So, no, the people do not elect the President, the States do.
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.