Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rxsid
"Supreme Court will say this is a political question and a separation of powers issue and they have absolutely no constitutional authority to get involved."

I'm not convinced that this is true. The Supreme Court might dismiss the appeal like that; however it might opt for truth, i.e. the Constitution does not allow for and therefore disallows impeachment for purely political purposes, in fact stating exactly what constitutes an impeachable offense, viz. treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Constitution and thus US law state that these are the only lawful reasons for impeachment, thus nullifying this unconstitutional "impeachment."

The Supreme Court should also recognize the coup d'état attempt for what it is and take measures, such as making it clear that impeachment for purely arbitrary and/or political purposes is unconstitutional and illegal. This will prevent similar coups d'état in the future, strengthen the Republic, and strengthen the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has take similar radical action before, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education and outlawing the Democratic White Primary.

The present attempt at coup d'état is at least as important.

The Supreme Court should accept its responsibility and act accordingly.

President Trump, his lawyers, and the Senate and House Republicans should insist that it do so.

102 posted on 12/19/2019 8:55:54 AM PST by Savage Beast (The curse of high intelligence: Having to watch the morons try everything that obviously won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: Savage Beast

Exactly.. The blatant coup is the elephant in the room. We live in crazy times.


112 posted on 12/19/2019 3:22:19 PM PST by DivineMomentsOfTruth ("There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." -GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: Savage Beast
"The Supreme Court should accept its responsibility and act accordingly."

Had they done so, we never would have had a "President" Barak Hussein Obama as he never was a "natural born Citizen" (styled exactly as John Jay's letter to Washington prior to the requirement changing from simply "citizen") as clearly mandated by the Constitution.

The guy even admitted on his campaign website that his birth status was governed by a foreign power....he inherited his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright regardless of his actual place of birth. Ironically, one of the rare truths the bassturd ever told in public.

The court threw out all challenges, effectively saying it was a political question.

They shouldn't have done it...but did.

114 posted on 12/19/2019 8:37:02 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson