Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Constitution is the "law of the land", LL, and there is nothing "implied" and there is no ambiguity about who, under the Constitution, has the "sole power to impeach". And it ain't the judiciary.

Make it real big, why don't you.

I never posted the "judiciary" was authorized to "impeach" the President.

Like most die-hards on here trying to survive in their bullshit, you change what someone posts to "appear" correct .... "Wikipedia"???

Put that with the Free Dictionary "law of the land"....

The Supreme Court by Article III has the jurisdiction to review the Congressional action based on the Constitution on an appeal. It's fundamental.

Nothing can be implied .... ?

Where does the Constitution authorize the President to issue executive orders?

The Constitution couldn't be clearer on Supreme Court jurisdiction:

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Article III, Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,.... "

The impeachment and conviction of a President is ..

...... a case "arising under this Constitution" .... with

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, .... "

That phrase is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

"appellate jurisdiction"

The Nixon decision references the Powell decision in which "standards" were imposed upon the House action and were reviewable. That was distinguishable as far as appellate jurisdiction, not to mention that Nixon involves the impeachment of a judge.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"appellate jurisdiction"

The Nixon decision references the Powell decision in which "standards" were imposed upon the House action and were reviewable. That was distinguishable as far as appellate jurisdiction, not to mention that Nixon involves the impeachment of a judge.

When "applying" a case to make a point a common error is to quote dicta in a case to support an alleged point in a factually distinguishable case. Going back to the "original" discussion, it had nothing to do with the "procedural aspects" of a trial in the Senate (Nixon), but this thread discussion (at least mine) had to do with the decision making of the House in the initial impeachment process ... not the "process," but application of the specific standards imposed upon the House to impeach (Powell standards of review, which the was not "overruled" or otherwise "marginalized" by the majority or concurring opinions in Nixon.

First of all, Nixon did "review" the language of the Constitution.

Secondly, the importance of Powell in the discussion is that the Court in Nixon recognized the "standards" used for judicial review of House action, and concluded, correctly, that when there are "standards" established by the Constitution the application and compliance with those standards by the House are "reviewable." Not only are there Constitutional standards for articles of impeachment that restrict the House there are also "standards" for the qualification of President, which ARE ON POINT to the discussion and my scenario of a racially motivated impeachment decision

Thirdly, the separation of powers played a role in the decision in Nixon in which the Judiciary reviewing the trial of a Judge was not consistent with the separation of powers, not to mention the Judge had already been convicted of several felonies, which, of course, would satisfy the legal requirements of the House articles of impeachment ("high crimes and misdemeanors").

Here is the distinction stated specifically in the Nixon decision by the Majority:

"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.

Since there are "textual limitations" (the enumeration of the basis for articles of impeachment in the Constitution) on the authority of the House to "indict" with articles of impeachment, Baker and Powell are controlling with the approval of the Court in Nixon. That is also consistent with Robert's quote I have posted regarding judicial review of Congressional action outside of its "authority."

Here's what the Current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted:

"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."

Sounds like Rehnquist and Roberts are on the same page! And Nixon is not helpful to the point of the "IMPEACHERS" in the thread.

A far cry from "full discretion" as was announced by the IMPEACHERS.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In the real world, LL, ....

When did you handle your first appeal?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Make it real big, why don't you.

I never posted the "judiciary" was authorized to "impeach" the President.

Like most die-hards on here trying to survive in their bullshit, you change what someone posts to "appear" correct .... "Wikipedia"???

Put that with the Free Dictionary "law of the land"....

The Supreme Court by Article III has the jurisdiction to review the Congressional action based on the Constitution on an appeal. It's fundamental.

Nothing can be implied .... ?

Where does the Constitution authorize the President to issue executive orders?

The Constitution couldn't be clearer on Supreme Court jurisdiction:

It wasn't Wikipedia I cited, LL, and 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.

Nixon's attempts to negate the significance of "sole" are unavailing
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../224/case.html

That was also he position held in 1867 when proceedings against Johnson were considered:

"[I]n the grave questions decided on an impeachment, a single tribunal disposes of the question absolutely and for all time." Theodore Dwight, Trial by Impeachment, 6 U. PA. L. REV. 257, 258 (1867)

Further, as Story points out, the jurists on the Supreme Court are appointed by presidents; hence, they might be subject to some degree of personal allegiance to a particular president at the time of impeachment. The primary reason the Chief Justice is included in the impeachment process is to minimize the role of President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, who also might harbor some ulterior motive for seeing a president impeached.

Story wrote,

"The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests...The jurisdiction to impeach is placed, where it should be, in the possession and power of the immediate representatives of the people."

Note also, LL, the folks in the real world at Justia hold an opinion that directly contradicts yours regarding Nixon.

Judicial Review of Impeachments

It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i.e., that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.” Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.

Both judges challenged the use under Rule XI of a trial committee to hear the evidence and report to the full Senate, which would then carry out the trial. The rule was adopted in the aftermath of an embarrassingly sparse attendance at the trial of Judge Louderback in 1935. National Comm. Report, supra at 50-53, 54-57; Grimes, supra at 1233-37. In the Nixon case, the lower courts held the issue to be non-justiciable (Nixon v. United States, 744 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d 938 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991), but a year later a district court initially ruled in Judge Hastings’ favor. Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Nixon at the time of his conviction and removal from office was a federal district judge in Mississippi.

The Court listed “reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” and elsewhere agreed with the appeals court that “opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.” 506 U.S. at 234, 236.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...eachments.html

[Yssup Rider]

what a fucking scholar.
pity that you're chasing your mangy little tail, Poop Dogg!

[WTF]

The good thing is neither LL nor IB will find out who is right or wrong because the adults in the GOP have effectively collared the Tea Wipes. ....impeachment is off the table.






.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

....impeachment is off the table.

You overestimate the "scholarly" perceptions.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

When did you handle your first appeal?

Still struggling with your "real world"?

When I can use someone's case back on them, that is the real world.

Rhenquist had it right.

"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.

Attempting to impeach the President based on his or her race would be ...

exceeding "whatever authority has been committed,...."!

Your "world" is not "real." It is "play-believe"!

You are ... identifying a result you want and seeking dicta to support it.

Like I said before ... let me know when you decide to show up with the "Free Dictionary" and now "Wikipedia" ....

[CuteOldGuy]

Nobody is going to impeach anyone based on race. You are out WPFing WPF. For all your alleged intelligence, your are an idiot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Still struggling with your "real world"?

When I can use someone's case back on them, that is the real world.

Rhenquist had it right.

"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.

Attempting to impeach the President based on his or her race would be ...

exceeding "whatever authority has been committed,...."!

Your "world" is not "real." It is "play-believe"!

You are ... identifying a result you want and seeking dicta to support it.

Like I said before ... let me know when you decide to show up with the "Free Dictionary" and now "Wikipedia" ....

In the "real world", LL, the Court ruled in Nixon that regarding impeachment, there is no judicial review; and there never has been. The Constitution unequivocally grants to Congress the "sole power" to impeach; as such, Congress is not "exceeding its authority" when it determines it must impeach.

And as a reminder, the sources I cited were not "wiki", LL; Story, Justia, Cornell, Rehnquist, C. J., Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Blackmun, J., Souter, J. etc., hold opinions that contradict yours.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

what a fucking scholar.
pity that you're chasing your mangy little tail, Poop Dogg!

[Yssup Rider]

House can impeach. Can't convict.

Again, why haven't they already done it? According to you, IBIdiot, President Obama has been a criminal since he crawled out of the Kenyan mosque...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

House can impeach. Can't convict.

Again, why haven't they already done it? According to you, IBIdiot, President Obama has been a criminal since he crawled out of the Kenyan mosque...

That's what he wants, which means he really wants Biden to be President.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Nobody is going to impeach anyone based on race.

That wasn't the question. But THE question was already answered ..

Was it you? Or one of the other of the IMPEACHERS?

The answer given by you or one of the other IMPEACHERS in this thread was ...

YES! The House CAN impeach Obama for being a Black man holding the office of President of the United States .. and according to your "legal opinion" ...
the SCOTUS can't do a damn thing about it .... because ....

.........the House has "full discretion" to do so!!!!

And you call me an "idiot"?

This whole thread is about "what if" ..... speculation!!!!

So to test your legal opinion and theory of "full discretion" I merely posed a scenario-hypothetical to determine the validity of your "legal opinion"!!!!

And YOUR ANSWER is ... according to your opinion ... if the House impeached (indicted) Obaminable for being a Black man as President and the Senate convicted him of that "impeachable offense" (according to you), then the SCOTUS could do NOTHING ABOUT IT! ....

That is the result of your "legal opinion."

Again ... and you call me an "idiot"????

In your vast extraordinarily indepth educational experience on the road to becoming the scholar you are today, were you exposed to the "socratic method" of learning? If not consult your Wekipedia!
So far you have an F.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

House can impeach. Can't convict.

Again, why haven't they already done it? According to you, IBIdiot, President Obama has been a criminal since he crawled out of the Kenyan mosque...

Your asinine retort is in response to a post wherein the word is obviously "Congress", you Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's what he wants, which means he really wants Biden to be President.

Why is it that you find it necessary to keep misrepresenting what was previously posted, LL? 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 you falsely claim that I advocate that Odumbo be impeached when I never entertained such a notion. You've been corrected multiple times; yet, you persist with your lies.