Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

...the Constitution couldn't be clearer that there is no allowance for the the court to second guess Congress on its decision, and that was the ruling of the court in Nixon....

The Constitution says nothing like that ... NOTHING!

The "ruling" in Nixon was that Nixon, who was claiming ONLY the Senate body could "try" the impeachment and not a "committee" selected by the Senate, was incorrect in his assessment that the Senate could not pass the fact finding job to a committee, although Rhenquist (majority opinion) agreed with Nixon...

"We agree with Nixon that courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits. As we have made clear, “whether the action of [either the Legislative or Executive Branch] exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 211; accord, Powell, supra, at 521." Nixon, 506 U.S. 237-238.

Unlike the Senate the House HAS "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" of its authority to impeach, which provide, as we exhaustively expressed earlier in this thread before you all decided to switch to the Senate to bolster your untenable "position" .... and those "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" for the impeachment of the President of the United States are ...

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4

1. Treason
2. Bribery
3. "OTHER" high crimes and misdemanors.

aka "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" ....

Back to the "socratic methodology" lesson: "Black President" ... is it ..

"Treason"?
"Bribery"?
a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

Which is it ...? Which one is it? A "misdemeanor"?

And you call me an "idiot"?

[CuteOldGuy]

You ARE an idiot, LL. It's not name calling, it's a statement of fact. You are doubling down on stupid by using your ridiculous hypothetical, and continuing to repeat in full WPF mode. But let's just say a President is impeached and removed based on his/her race, gender or even sexuality orientation. Where is the authority of the Court to overrule that decision? Impeachment is not legislation.

BTW, did you figure out the history of Marbury v Madison? I didn't think so.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution says nothing like that ... NOTHING!

The "ruling" in Nixon was that Nixon, who was claiming ONLY the Senate body could "try" the impeachment and not a "committee" selected by the Senate, was incorrect in his assessment that the Senate could not pass the fact finding job to a committee, although Rhenquist (majority opinion) agreed with Nixon...

"We agree with Nixon that courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits. As we have made clear, “whether the action of [either the Legislative or Executive Branch] exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 211; accord, Powell, supra, at 521." Nixon, 506 U.S. 237-238.

Unlike the Senate the House HAS "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" of its authority to impeach, which provide, as we exhaustively expressed earlier in this thread before you all decided to switch to the Senate to bolster your untenable "position" .... and those "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" for the impeachment of the President of the United States are ...

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4

1. Treason
2. Bribery
3. "OTHER" high crimes and misdemanors.

aka "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" ....

Back to the "socratic methodology" lesson: "Black President" ... is it ..

"Treason"?
"Bribery"?
a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

Which is it ...? Which one is it? A "misdemeanor"?

And you call me an "idiot"?

Primary Holding: NIXON v. UNITED STATES ET AL.

The political question doctrine is triggered when the text of the Constitution has shown that an issue lies outside the scope of the courts, or there is no judicial standard for resolving the issue.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...24/#annotation

FYI, LL, I never called you an "idiot" in this exchange. I did say you were lying when you falsely equated Story, Justia, Cornell, Rehnquist, C. J., Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Blackmun, J., Souter, J. etc., as being "Wikipedia sources" and when you falsely claimed that I advocated that Odumbo be impeached

[Guest040616]

Don't ya just love it when the Idiot Klan, errr Clan plays Family Feud?

[Yssup Rider]

"Name something you suck..."

They're trying really hard not to melt down all over each other ...

[Yssup Rider]

Is that what you learned in GED tutorial, IBIdiot?

Obviously you don't understand.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

AL.




when you falsely claimed that I advocated that Odumbo be impeached

True LL, IB , like many, think it Fool's Gold coming from the Tea Party congregation.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Don't ya just love it when the Idiot Klan, errr Clan plays Family Feud?

It's called healthy and vigorous debate. Something you and the Austin Reacharound Crew know nothing about. The PC libtard bolshevik taliban thought police on the left won't allow it. Just look at the difference between the way John Boehner runs the House and Harry Reid has run the Senate. Like night and day.

[southtown4488]

maybe a president who starts a war based on lies should be impeached. . .a president whos only crime is being a democrat is not a reason to impeach, at least not to a reasonably capable adult.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I did say you were lying when you falsely equated Story, Justia, Cornell, Rehnquist, C. J., Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Blackmun, J., Souter, J. etc., as being "Wikipedia sources" and when you falsely claimed that I advocated that Odumbo be impeached....

"lying"?
"falsely equated"?
"falsely claimed"?

I see you use the same "definition" of "lying" as does Southtown below, as well as some others on here ... WTF and YR?

A "problem" with Wikipedia and similar resources is that they are no better than the person who posts the comment for reliability and precedent. Some posters even quote from the "syllabus" of cases as a basis for their citing the case ... the "syllabus" (synopsis) is nothing more than an "editor's" version of what was written in the opinion. That is the number one reason I seek the actual opinion to read it to see for myself two things: #1 what were the precise words written in the opinion and #2 from where did the author of the opinion get the source of the legal principle, so that I can look at the source as well.

Example on an entirely different topic but appropriate:

Terry vs. Ohio is commonly referred to the "stop and frisk" case. Subsequent Courts, most particularly in Texas have latched on the "common title" and "assumed" that the Supreme Court by Terry authorized police to STOP someone on the street (or any a vehicle now) and FRISK them. #1: that's not what Terry says. #2 the SCOTUS clarified what it held in Terry in the opinion of Sibron vs. New York (392 u.s. 40) that was decided on the same day and comes immediately after Terry in the same volume of the U.S. Supreme Court's Official Reporter. Actually what Terry (and Sibron) say is that THE POLICE CAN STOP and talk to someone ... NOT THAT THE POLICE CAN STOP THEM. There is a difference. And Sibron says the citizen doesn't have to talk and can merely walk away. But over the years it has been morphed into a misinterpretation by the "title"! almost to the point that it is moot with subsequent decisions by the SCOTUS effectively expanding what it says from the LE perspective.

A flaw (and danger) in the conclusion that the SCOTUS cannot "referee' what Congress does by the "constraints" of the implied authorities granted in the Constitution to Congress is that same rationale can be applied to the Executive Branch and most particularly in the current circumstances when a President announces he has the authority to make what are effectively legislative changes to the existing laws by executive orders. The SCOTUS has rejected his "reading" of the implied powers he has under the Constitution on several instances .... and hopefully on yet another one involving immigration.

My extreme example of impeaching a President because he is Black is no more "extreme" than a President with the stroke of a pen making 5 million criminals living in this country "innocent" of their crime and allowing them to reap the benefits of their crime with the same stroke of his pen. That may be "politically expedient" to some, but it is a dangerous (IMO) precedent to set, if he is allowed to do it with impunity and some "oversight" by the SCOTUS.

There is not one Justice on the SCOTUS who has NOT been approved by the other two branches of our Government. That cannot be said for either one of the other branches. And frankly I would prefer their "scholarly" abilities over those of the other two branches of government who have repeatedly shown themselves to be "not so scholarly" in their passage and/or implementation of laws recently. But that's just my opinion. What's yours on the subject.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You ARE an idiot, LL. It's not name calling, it's a statement of fact.

Apparently Dorothy left Toto behind.

Your opinion of me means nothing, and is nothing,

........................aside from you being from Kansas.

How's it "feel" to be in the BigTits Club?

He also believes that anyone who disagrees with him is an "idiot"!

Rhenquist and Roberts agree with my assessment (or saying it factually correct ... I agree with theirs) of the AUTHORITY of the SCOTUS to oversee actions take by the Congress that are outside of their authority ... as well as actions taken by the President that are outside of his authority.

The humor (if one can call it that) of citing Nixon to support your claim is the SCOTUS did in Nixon EXACTLY what you claim the SCOTUS cannot do and that is DETERMINE the authority of Congress to engage in a specific activity .. and in doing so the SCOTUS through the PEN of Rhenquist ( and later echoed by Roberts) said:

"We agree with Nixon that courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits. As we have made clear, “whether the action of [either the Legislative or Executive Branch] exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 211; accord, Powell, supra, at 521." Nixon, 506 U.S. 237-238.

I'm not sure what you think these words actually mean:

"... this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”


And you think you are intellectually qualified to call me an "idiot"?

You are less qualified than BigTits is to call anyone an "idiot"!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"lying"?
"falsely equated"?
"falsely claimed"?

I see you use the same "definition" of "lying" as does Southtown below, as well as some others on here ... WTF and YR?

A "problem" with Wikipedia and similar resources is that they are no better than the person who posts the comment for reliability and precedent. Some posters even quote from the "syllabus" of cases as a basis for their citing the case ... the "syllabus" (synopsis) is nothing more than an "editor's" version of what was written in the opinion. That is the number one reason I seek the actual opinion to read it to see for myself two things: #1 what were the precise words written in the opinion and #2 from where did the author of the opinion get the source of the legal principle, so that I can look at the source as well.

Example on an entirely different topic but appropriate:

Terry vs. Ohio is commonly referred to the "stop and frisk" case. Subsequent Courts, most particularly in Texas have latched on the "common title" and "assumed" that the Supreme Court by Terry authorized police to STOP someone on the street (or any a vehicle now) and FRISK them. #1: that's not what Terry says. #2 the SCOTUS clarified what it held in Terry in the opinion of Sibron vs. New York (392 u.s. 40) that was decided on the same day and comes immediately after Terry in the same volume of the U.S. Supreme Court's Official Reporter. Actually what Terry (and Sibron) say is that THE POLICE CAN STOP and talk to someone ... NOT THAT THE POLICE CAN STOP THEM. There is a difference. And Sibron says the citizen doesn't have to talk and can merely walk away. But over the years it has been morphed into a misinterpretation by the "title"! almost to the point that it is moot with subsequent decisions by the SCOTUS effectively expanding what it says from the LE perspective.

A flaw (and danger) in the conclusion that the SCOTUS cannot "referee' what Congress does by the "constraints" of the implied authorities granted in the Constitution to Congress is that same rationale can be applied to the Executive Branch and most particularly in the current circumstances when a President announces he has the authority to make what are effectively legislative changes to the existing laws by executive orders. The SCOTUS has rejected his "reading" of the implied powers he has under the Constitution on several instances .... and hopefully on yet another one involving immigration.

My extreme example of impeaching a President because he is Black is no more "extreme" than a President with the stroke of a pen making 5 million criminals living in this country "innocent" of their crime and allowing them to reap the benefits of their crime with the same stroke of his pen. That may be "politically expedient" to some, but it is a dangerous (IMO) precedent to set, if he is allowed to do it with impunity and some "oversight" by the SCOTUS.

There is not one Justice on the SCOTUS who has NOT been approved by the other two branches of our Government. That cannot be said for either one of the other branches. And frankly I would prefer their "scholarly" abilities over those of the other two branches of government who have repeatedly shown themselves to be "not so scholarly" in their passage and/or implementation of laws recently. But that's just my opinion. What's yours on the subject.

The Constitution explicitly states Congress is granted the sole power to promulgate impeachments; hence, LL, it is your contrary notion that is flawed. The intent of the Founding Fathers in such cases went unquestioned for 200 years until Nixon, and in Nixon the jurist rejected the notion that impeachments were subject to judicial reviews.

NIXON v. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
The Court's Opinion:

There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses - the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. See Art. I, 3, cl. 7. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments:

"Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial should, in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?" The Federalist No. 65, p. 442 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

Certainly judicial review of the Senate's "trial" would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.

Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and [506 U.S. 224, 235] balances.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...24/#annotation

As to another of your remarks, LL, when you falsely equate Story, Justia, Cornell, Rehnquist, C. J., Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Blackmun, J., Souter, J. etc., as being "Wikipedia sources" and when you falsely claim I advocating that Odumbo be impeached, you are unequivocally lying. In this exchange, I have never used wiki as a source; yet, you continue to state or insinuate that I did.

Originally Posted by southtown4488

maybe a president who starts a war based on lies should be impeached. . .a president whos only crime is being a democrat is not a reason to impeach, at least not to a reasonably capable adult.

Yes, being a dim-retard isn't Odumbo's only crime. You are correct in your assertion that Odumbo has wantonly made war in several countries without the consent of Congress, unlike his predecessors.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

"Name something you suck..."

They're trying really hard not to melt down all over each other ...

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is that what you learned in GED tutorial, IBIdiot?

Obviously you don't understand.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are less qualified than BigTits is to call anyone an "idiot"!

LLIdiot, to be more precise, you are an arrogant, egotistical, condescending Idiot.

Do you feel better now?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[SIZE="3"]Yes, being a dim-retard isn't Odumbo's only crime. You are correct in your assertion that Odumbo has wantonly made war in several countries without the consent of Congress, unlike his predecessors.

"Wantonly?" Prove that. or is that yet another of your editorial opinions, Mr. Pull-putzer?

"Unlike his predecessors"? That's a fucking lie. Period.

You're not even flirting with accuracy in this statement, IBIdiot. Your flat-out lying.

For a change.

admit it or prove otherwise.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Do you feel better now?

Just pity for you, that's all. But try to enjoy "Thanksgiving" anyway.