OK what about this angle:
But what if someone DID bring up impeachment hearings.....
if impeachment did not apply,would not that point come out in those proceedings... ?
I.E. would questions come up as to why it didn’t apply?
What group would say impeachment didn’t apply?
Which group could use that argument to their advantage?
FRmail welcome
Those questions which are inherent in the political process present a number of clean technical issues. Typically what happens when the issues are as clear as they are here is that they come up and face technical resolution in the process.
If they don't get resolved in a removal proceeding, the failure will carryover into the myriad of issues that Barry's ineligibility to hold the office presents in the government policy environment.
You can start with the general proposition that the Dems always have better legal help than the R's do. So the Dems are usually gaming operation of the technical issues well ahead of the time they are recognized by the R's and that is the case here.
What the Dems would do about it is speculation. The litney I heard from a relatively junior staff person was that the Dems would attempt to stall the proceeding with the procedural issue of eligibility--the burden of proof of all elements of the claim is on the moving party: ie the R's need to start by proving that Barry is the office holder at all. Whether they do that or not is anyone's guess.
Impeachment generally is a very difficult task. Barry is in a lot of political difficulty; it has been generally thought that impeachment would get an adverse kickback from his racial supporters however I see the current polls showing that he is losing support in that group also. It is very clear that the R's are no longer so intimidated by the difficulties.
I have set out in my earlier post what I believe the correct procedure is--I think it can be done with a majority vote by the Republicans.
Under the 20th Amendment to the Constitution the process is pretty clear--if Congress certifies an eligible person elected Vice President and does not certify an eligible person President, the certified Vice President acts as "Acting President" until an eligible person is certified President.
So technically, where we have been since January of 2009 is operating with an Acting President--Joseph Biden. Joe is not only not president, he isn't Vice President either. The 22nd Amendment makes that clear.
Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment says that "no person who has acted as President for more than 2 years of a term shall be elected to the office of President more than once."
One might think that Joe has been Acting as President for a lot more than 2 years and thus would only be eligible to run for President only once which he likely would do if Barry is ejected.
Again, I think the Dems have been here ahead of us because on several significant acts, Biden has been the actor.
Hillary and Leon Pinetta had Joe in the room for the decision to take down Osama for a reason.
Given the other things they have done (Barry's actual swearing in on both occasions was done in camera because the oath is a substantive act), you don't really know what they have done to prepare for the prospect of an end game.
That is one of the reasons the side with the best legal help usually wins these kinds of confrontation.
But it is pretty obvious that Harry is correct--lots of people in the political establishment are moving in the direction of replacing Barry.