- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/13/19 at 8:51 pm to jamboybarry
quote:
The Democratic Party has cheapened the mechanism of impeachment with this stunt and for that they can eat a bag of dicks
And also for that, the next president will be impeached too. And the next one. And the next one. And the next one.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 8:56 pm to lsufanz
Would there not be some mechanism to get a temporary injunction to stay the impeachment proceedings and/or vote?
Posted on 12/13/19 at 8:58 pm to Meauxjeaux
No because the house shall have full power of impeachment
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:03 pm to jamboybarry
Like the president has full executive power of, say, things like a travel ban, yet a court issued an injunction immediately staying the order?
What’s the difference here?
What’s the difference here?
This post was edited on 12/13/19 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:05 pm to Meauxjeaux
I think there's absolutely a mechanism, and it's simply to petition for it through the court system, same as any other instance of seeking an injunction. Now, the chamces of a court granting the requested relief would be quite small. It would have to be something like an impeachment proceeding/trial moving forward despite the fact that, say, the President having just fallen ill and couldn't participate in any way, even just consultation with his representation in the proceeding/trial.
The House knows the judiciary does have reserved authority within the impeachment process. Otherwise they wouldn't have been participating in the ongoing court battles to enforce their subpoenas. That is ongoing. They simply chose to move forward regardless.
The House knows the judiciary does have reserved authority within the impeachment process. Otherwise they wouldn't have been participating in the ongoing court battles to enforce their subpoenas. That is ongoing. They simply chose to move forward regardless.
This post was edited on 12/13/19 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:09 pm to Giantkiller
quote:
And also for that, the next president will be impeached too. And the next one. And the next one. And the next one.
No way a Republican house and senate impeach a republican president and republican and on and on!
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:12 pm to Oddibe
quote:
Horowitz, regardless of his political beliefs, is the most well known constitutionalist in America.
Mark levin says hello.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:15 pm to makinskrilla
quote:No disrespect, but if you took a national poll Dershowitz is more well known. Levin is more well known in conservative circles.
Mark levin says hello.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:20 pm to Oddibe
I’ve said from day one of this Dim impeachment sham that the new precedent is after a election the party that loses will declare they will impeach the other party’s POTUS.....what a shite show the Dims have created.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:24 pm to makinskrilla
quote:
Mark levin says hello.
And Alan Dershowitz waves back.
Dershowitz has this one.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:29 pm to SSpaniel
The simple fix like in the Senate, require 2/3 of the House to for yes for impeachment to passage. Something like impeachment should be so alarming and wrong that it should require 2/3 of both House and Senate. This Dem circus has proven that a smiple majority is now just a political tool they will continue to use when they are in the majority of the House.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:52 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
The argument that the judiciary has no place in determining the validity of a congressional subpoena or the scope of executive privilege is absolute insanity.
It's literally their argument about Trump
Posted on 12/13/19 at 9:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Aren't they basically saying that
"We are congress. You must do what we say. You have no method for not doing what we say. No one can dispute us or go against us. If you don't do what we say, we'll hold you in contempt of us and remove you from office."
"We are congress. You must do what we say. You have no method for not doing what we say. No one can dispute us or go against us. If you don't do what we say, we'll hold you in contempt of us and remove you from office."
Posted on 12/13/19 at 10:05 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Dershowitz needs to be Trump's counsel at a Senate trial
It’s going to be trey gowdy.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 10:06 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:if it ain't Slo I vote to convict
Dershowitz needs to be Trump's counsel at a Senate trial
Posted on 12/13/19 at 10:18 pm to jamboybarry
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 is where we find the declaration that the House "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment". I'd argue, and I don't think it's a difficult argument to make, that this simply means that the House of Representatives, not the Senate or any other component of our government, reserves the exclusive right/power/authority to "prosecute" an impeachment proceeding. That's sorta like saying only a duly elected or appointed state prosecutor or duly appointed federal prosecutor can initiate and/or conduct a prosecution....not a judge, or a grand jury, or an administrative board, nor can a group of citizens form a petit jury and prosecute someone, etc etc.
If the Framers had stated "shall have the sole power of impeachment, to the exclusion of the authority of the Judiciary" or something similar, different story of course.
But it's a stretch to argue that the Founders intended exclusion of the Judiciary, especially with their favor towards checks and balances.
If the Framers had stated "shall have the sole power of impeachment, to the exclusion of the authority of the Judiciary" or something similar, different story of course.
But it's a stretch to argue that the Founders intended exclusion of the Judiciary, especially with their favor towards checks and balances.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 10:28 pm to Oddibe
quote:
Horowitz, regardless of his political beliefs, is the most well known constitutionalist in America.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 11:12 pm to davyjones
Now Davey, I am going to ask you to put your thinking cap on.
What you are suggesting would mean that the House, by simple majority, could declare itself to be in a virtual impeachment inquiry and require the White House to explain its every deliberative process and provide, without limitation, every document produced.
Don't be an ignorant frick. The nation can't function like that.
What you are suggesting would mean that the House, by simple majority, could declare itself to be in a virtual impeachment inquiry and require the White House to explain its every deliberative process and provide, without limitation, every document produced.
Don't be an ignorant frick. The nation can't function like that.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 11:14 pm to Oddibe
Not being a crime already nullified it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News