Posted on 10/29/2019 6:07:42 AM PDT by george76
Pelosi in her old age is acting more and more like her Mafia family roots. I wonder which member of “The Family” has his hand in the Ukrainian cookie jar?
Not the first time she pulled a fast one
https://canadafreepress.com/article/dnc-failed-to-certify-obama-as-eligible-in-most-states1
They already destroyed the Republic on Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009 when both parties abrogated the Constitution.
I don’t understand any of this.
You nailed it G
She is trying to satisfy the Republicans, without giving them a thing. I have sent this to everyone I know, and I suggest you all do the same.
They are not giving the Republicans the right to do anything without their approval, or there “special” Republican (Rino) participants.
Bottom line: Don’t be fooled, Demorats give nothing.
Flimsey Grahamnesty wants to pass amnesty, he needs President Trump out of the way to give our country away.
Pelosi isn’t mentally competent.
Everything she says needs to be translated back into her illogical world where rules aren’t followed.
RE: I don’t understand any of this.>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear fatima.
If you really want to know, here is article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, delineating the powers of the House of Representatives.:
Article 1 , s. 9 : No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Bill of Attainder:
“A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.”
Read more, if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
Because Schiff is not following due process nor following the Constitution which requires the entire House be involved with impeachment, all with the same due process, any letters of impeachment resolved and issued by the Dems would not legally be a letter of impeachment, rather they would have the status of a Bill of Attainder which is prohibited by Article 1 section 9 of the Constitution, because Schiff is trying to find President Trump guilty without trial, like the King of England used to do to Americans in colonial times.
The Senate could claim the whole Impeachment effort was a partisan drafting of a Bill of Attainder and refuse to act upon the information Schiff sends to them, because Bills of Attainder are prohibited by the Constitution.
OK ?
K-Thanks.
You are right on target.
This is exactly what they are trying to do on the assumption that the GOP Senate and most of the House has never heard of it.
Says who? Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and they just passed a resolution. I'm sorry that Thomas Lifson doesn't like it, but so what.
The House gets to make their own rules. The House passed rules to govern in inquiry that led to the House Judiciary Committee passing Impeachment Articles against Nixon. Which in turn triggered his resignation.
That was then, this is now.
And Now, the House has passed rules to govern the inquirey that will again, lead to the Judiciary Committee (in a few weeks or months) passing articles of impeachment.
There is not superseding law that says "NO, YOU HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY!! The resolution has to be fair to the President and the Accused".
I'm right. Lifson and everyone else arguing this point are just whining at this point. Who is going to "overrule" Nancy and/or tell Jerry Nadler that he' can't pass articles of Impeachment out of the Judiciary committee in January or Decemeber?
No One!
Article One, Section Five:Conservatives who think this isn't a "real inquiry" are ignoring the plain text of the Constitution, and have not made any substantive case that their claims have merit.Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
The entire House just voted. So, that argument is moot now. The entire House voted on a resolution that laid out the ground rules for the investigation, it's similar to the one used in Nixon.
The mechanisms of the House are created by the House, it's not a part of the judicial branch, are there are no external "due process" regulations that bind the House.
If I'm wrong about this, then it should be easy for you to cite the "due process" laws/regulations that are binding on the House. Dot it: cite them.
I have cited Article 1 Section 5 above. Here is a portion of it again:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a memberBOOM!
Just like the State's can't add new rules on who can run for the House (like term limits, which they have tried), so, too, can no other group make binding rules for the House.
Here is the Wikipedia opening article on "Bill of Attainder"
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder passed in Parliament by Henry VIII on 29 January 1542 resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.The House is not attempting to Punish President Trump through a non-judicial law. They are merely trying to refer him to the Senate for an Impeachment trial, as has been done several times before. Impeachment is not an "attainder" because the only punishment is removal from office.
It is a purely political process, which results in a purely political solution - removal from office.
If the House were trying to put Trump into prison for something that would be a Bill of Attainder, but they are not.
Thanks,, and marked
Impeachment is not an “attainder” because the only punishment is removal from office.>>>>>>>>>>
Disagree. Any legislative act which does nor ensure the constitutional right of due process to the accused can be nothing else but a bill of attainder, because the information in the Letter or Article of Impeachment must decsribe “high crimes and misdemeanors”. If that evidence has not been in the due process from the beginning, the Articles of Impeachment are indeed a Bill of Attainder, a legislative Act specifically focused on a citizen of the United States , President Trump, with the sole purpose of jeopardizing him, punishing him and removing him from office.
Kings used to use Bills of Attainder to deny noble title.Here the Dems think they are kings that can deny President Trump his duly elected office. These acts of the Democrats are unconstitutional, and their process is indeed the construction of a Bill of Attainder, prohibited by Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.
The entire House just voted.>>>>>>>>>>>
They did not vote on impeachment.
They voted on the process of impeachment inquiry.
Both are very different.
The vote means nothing. Its just a scam to try and give constitutional legitimacy to the fishing expedition without due process guaranteed to the Presdent by the Constitution.
A Scam is a scam is a scam.
Due process is at the whim of the Dems, still not guaranteed as necessary in the Constitution.
Do not take the bait of these Alinsky radicals, they use our institutions against us.And for that they will be damned into the abyss of ignominy.
Yes but house rules, whatever they are from time to time, cannot place any citizen in jeopardy without the guarantee of due process.
Why should something the Nazis or Stalinists would do be something we give in to?
Duh?
We’ll end up shooting the bastids if we have to.
As I heard it Hunter made something like $8 Milllion from his Burisma no show job.
Pelosi herself has a “Hunter” problem with her own son.
I figure Pelosis Hunter problem is why the impeachment was called immediately after the phone call. The only way to cover up the crimes is a total dictatorial control over the government by the Democrats taking over the Presidency.
The Democrats have declared war on America at this point, there is no going back for them.
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.