|
Post by SockMonkey on May 15, 2017 23:58:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 16, 2017 1:09:20 GMT
When Alexander Hamilton wrote of “high Crimes,” he was referring to the violation of “public trust,” by abusing power, breaching ethics, or undermining the Constitution. [/a][/quote] Check Check Check
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on May 16, 2017 3:49:58 GMT
When Alexander Hamilton wrote of “high Crimes,” he was referring to the violation of “public trust,” by abusing power, breaching ethics, or undermining the Constitution. Is there a place this is actually documented and authorized as coming from Hamilton? We all know how everyone interprets the second amendment.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on May 16, 2017 7:26:25 GMT
When Alexander Hamilton wrote of “high Crimes,” he was referring to the violation of “public trust,” by abusing power, breaching ethics, or undermining the Constitution. Is there a place this is actually documented and authorized as coming from Hamilton? We all know how everyone interprets the second amendment. From google, it would appear to be from Federalist paper #69, but I'm not an expert.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on May 16, 2017 22:34:39 GMT
When Alexander Hamilton wrote of “high Crimes,” he was referring to the violation of “public trust,” by abusing power, breaching ethics, or undermining the Constitution. Is there a place this is actually documented and authorized as coming from Hamilton? We all know how everyone interprets the second amendment. The article discusses the definition of "high crimes" as the violation of the public trust, which is documented in Federalist 65. You can see the references below. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanorsThe very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[5]www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/02/what_are_high_crimes_and_misdemeanors.htmlwww.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-65
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 17, 2017 18:27:07 GMT
In order for this to happen, the House would have to initiate charges (and the first call to do so occurred today on the House floor by Al Green-TX (D)). An investigation would follow. If the majority votes in favor, then the president is considered impeached. Then it gets kicked over to the Senate for their trial and vote and if there is a 2/3rds majority in favor, then they can remove Trump from office officially. There have only been three impeachments in the history of the US and none of them followed all the way through the final process of formal removal. Richard Nixon resigned. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both exonerated by the Senate. Trump could absolutely be impeached...though I wouldn't count on it simply because the Republicans control both the House and Senate and those Republicans would have to be willing to risk losing a Republican president and possibly damage their party even further (if that is possible).
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on May 17, 2017 18:46:24 GMT
The cabinet could invoke the 25th amendment too.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on May 17, 2017 18:56:52 GMT
This is interesting information, thank you for sharing it.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 17, 2017 18:56:54 GMT
The cabinet could invoke the 25th amendment too. Sadly, that's not as straightforward as you would hope it to be, and think of what it would mean for future presidents? Should they live in fear that they will be removed under the 25th simply because his/her cabinet would rather have the Vice President instead? I think Bloomberg makes a great point on this exactly: "No future president would be given any additional reason to fear being deposed just because his or her cabinet decided they preferred the vice-president, and therefore no future president would have to choose them with that fear in mind. That's why if the threat of Trump is so great, the best remedy is the old-fashioned constitutional one." Further, why should Congress be let off the hook here? The Republicans opened the door for Trump, they should be the ones to boot him out, Constitutionally.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on May 17, 2017 18:58:46 GMT
The cabinet could invoke the 25th amendment too. Can you elaborate, for the girl that didn't have government class?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 17, 2017 20:24:49 GMT
The cabinet could invoke the 25th amendment too. Can you elaborate, for the girl that didn't have government class?
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on May 17, 2017 21:15:35 GMT
The cabinet could invoke the 25th amendment too. Sadly, that's not as straightforward as you would hope it to be, and think of what it would mean for future presidents? Should they live in fear that they will be removed under the 25th simply because his/her cabinet would rather have the Vice President instead? I think Bloomberg makes a great point on this exactly: "No future president would be given any additional reason to fear being deposed just because his or her cabinet decided they preferred the vice-president, and therefore no future president would have to choose them with that fear in mind. That's why if the threat of Trump is so great, the best remedy is the old-fashioned constitutional one." Further, why should Congress be let off the hook here? The Republicans opened the door for Trump, they should be the ones to boot him out, Constitutionally. How would invoking the 25th Amendment not be constitutional? I agree, it can't be used willy nilly, but you can't say it's not constitutional. If it was invoked, i would expect testimony from multiple experts as to why the president is no longer fit.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 17, 2017 21:33:31 GMT
Sadly, that's not as straightforward as you would hope it to be, and think of what it would mean for future presidents? Should they live in fear that they will be removed under the 25th simply because his/her cabinet would rather have the Vice President instead? I think Bloomberg makes a great point on this exactly: "No future president would be given any additional reason to fear being deposed just because his or her cabinet decided they preferred the vice-president, and therefore no future president would have to choose them with that fear in mind. That's why if the threat of Trump is so great, the best remedy is the old-fashioned constitutional one." Further, why should Congress be let off the hook here? The Republicans opened the door for Trump, they should be the ones to boot him out, Constitutionally. How would invoking the 25th Amendment not be constitutional? I agree, it can't be used willy nilly, but you can't say it's not constitutional. If it was invoked, i would expect testimony from multiple experts as to why the president is no longer fit. I never said invoking the 25th Amendment wasn't constitutional, just that the original constitutional process of impeachment is more appropriate. ETA: And really, I do think the Republicans must take responsibility for Trump. They let him in after all, they should be the ones to get him out. I encourage you to read the article I cited just above your post.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on May 18, 2017 19:03:21 GMT
How would invoking the 25th Amendment not be constitutional? I agree, it can't be used willy nilly, but you can't say it's not constitutional. If it was invoked, i would expect testimony from multiple experts as to why the president is no longer fit. I never said invoking the 25th Amendment wasn't constitutional, just that the original constitutional process of impeachment is more appropriate. ETA: And really, I do think the Republicans must take responsibility for Trump. They let him in after all, they should be the ones to get him out. I encourage you to read the article I cited just above your post. 25th Amendment talk on the headline of yahoo today.
I don't think it is the best course of action, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Obviously other folks are discussing the same kind of thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 11:25:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 22:40:20 GMT
Rick Wilson (Republican) says Get off Trump Ship Now. "I’ve been a Republican political consultant for almost 30 years, and I’ve dispensed a lot of private advice. But now it’s time for me to reach out publicly to my fellow Republicans working in the Trump administration. We really need to talk.... Sticking with Trump to the bitter end and pretending the unfolding chaos is just “fake news” won’t save your reputation as the walls close in. It won’t ease the judgment of history. It won’t do anything to polish up your future Wikipedia entry. Cutting ties with a man who is destructive to our values, profoundly divisive, contemptuous of the rule of law and incontrovertibly unfit to serve in the highest office in the land just might. Do it now." www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/18/if-you-work-for-trump-its-time-to-quit/?utm_term=.0c02243e922c
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 19, 2017 15:48:34 GMT
I've always liked that Rick Wilson.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 19, 2017 16:08:55 GMT
In order for this to happen, the House would have to initiate charges (and the first call to do so occurred today on the House floor by Al Green-TX (D)). An investigation would follow. If the majority votes in favor, then the president is considered impeached. Then it gets kicked over to the Senate for their trial and vote and if there is a 2/3rds majority in favor, then they can remove Trump from office officially. There have only been three impeachments in the history of the US and none of them followed all the way through the final process of formal removal. Richard Nixon resigned. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both exonerated by the Senate. Trump could absolutely be impeached...though I wouldn't count on it simply because the Republicans control both the House and Senate and those Republicans would have to be willing to risk losing a Republican president and possibly damage their party even further (if that is possible).Silly question, but wouldn't the VP take over if the POTUS is removed. Wouldn't they still have a Republican in office? And even if Pence is removed as well, wouldn't Paul Ryan be next in line?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 19, 2017 16:21:20 GMT
In order for this to happen, the House would have to initiate charges (and the first call to do so occurred today on the House floor by Al Green-TX (D)). An investigation would follow. If the majority votes in favor, then the president is considered impeached. Then it gets kicked over to the Senate for their trial and vote and if there is a 2/3rds majority in favor, then they can remove Trump from office officially. There have only been three impeachments in the history of the US and none of them followed all the way through the final process of formal removal. Richard Nixon resigned. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both exonerated by the Senate. Trump could absolutely be impeached...though I wouldn't count on it simply because the Republicans control both the House and Senate and those Republicans would have to be willing to risk losing a Republican president and possibly damage their party even further (if that is possible).Silly question, but wouldn't the VP take over if the POTUS is removed. Wouldn't they still have a Republican in office? And even if Pence is removed as well, wouldn't Paul Ryan be next in line? Yes, but it would still be a great and permanent stain on the Republican party's name and honor.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 19, 2017 16:31:07 GMT
Thanks Lucy, I missed that part somehow in translation.
|
|