- 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
Serious Question: Does the Quorum Clause Invalidate the Shifty-Pelosi Inquiry
Posted on 10/23/19 at 8:54 am
Posted on 10/23/19 at 8:54 am
quote:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 5, CLAUSE 1
The Pelosi dim sympathizers on the Poliboard have taken the position that because, the Impeachment Clause of Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution merely states the House "shall have the sole power of Impeachment" a vote in the House is not required to launch an investigation.
That argument seems to ignore the Quorum Clause which expressly mandates that a Majority of the House be required to do Business.
How is conducting an "Impeachment Inquiry" where testimony is being compelled and the overwhelming majority of the congressional attention is focused on the "Inquiry" not "doing [House] Business?" They are certainly not focused on their legislative duties at the moment.
This 1998 Congressional Research Study did a historical review of all of the RESOLUTIONS that were previously passed to commence impeachment inquiries. The requirement of a resolution passed by a quorum was not controversial to the authors who made only a passing reference to the Quorums Claim in Footnote 1.
BTW- the House at the time passed a 363 to 63 "to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commence." In other words, that Congress passed a resolution to launch an inquiry into whether they should launch a formal impeachment inquiry.
This post was edited on 10/23/19 at 9:41 am
5
Posted on 10/23/19 at 8:55 am to PhDoogan
Good stuff.
Levin also pointed out the other night that the Senate isn't legally bound to hold a trial. Mitch could easily tell them to frick off if he wanted to.
Levin also pointed out the other night that the Senate isn't legally bound to hold a trial. Mitch could easily tell them to frick off if he wanted to.
Posted on 10/23/19 at 9:16 am to bamarep
Levin is always great, but his analysis of the shitshow has been spot on.
Posted on 10/23/19 at 9:44 am to PhDoogan
and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;
Excellent point!
Excellent point!
Posted on 10/23/19 at 9:47 am to PhDoogan
And this point seems sufficient to launch a suit to be decided by SCOTUS.
Posted on 10/23/19 at 10:03 am to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
And this point seems sufficient to launch a suit to be decided by SCOTUS.
Posted on 10/23/19 at 9:53 pm to PhDoogan
quote:quote:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 5, CLAUSE 1
The Pelosi dim sympathizers on the Poliboard have taken the position that because, the Impeachment Clause of Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution merely states the House "shall have the sole power of Impeachment" a vote in the House is not required to launch an investigation.
That argument seems to ignore the Quorum Clause which expressly mandates that a Majority of the House be required to do Business.
How is conducting an "Impeachment Inquiry" where testimony is being compelled and the overwhelming majority of the congressional attention is focused on the "Inquiry" not "doing [House] Business?" They are certainly not focused on their legislative duties at the moment.
This 1998 Congressional Research Study did a historical review of all of the RESOLUTIONS that were previously passed to commence impeachment inquiries. The requirement of a resolution passed by a quorum was not controversial to the authors who made only a passing reference to the Quorums Claim in Footnote 1.
BTW- the House at the time passed a 363 to 63 "to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commence." In other words, that Congress passed a resolution to launch an inquiry into whether they should launch a formal impeachment inquiry.
I'm not sure what your question is. Are you saying that the House of Representatives need a majority vote from both political parties in order to initiate the Impeachment Inquiry, or that the House of Representatives simply need a majority vote - period - in order to initiate it?
Posted on 10/23/19 at 10:32 pm to ConwayGamecock
quote:
I'm not sure what your question is. Are you saying that the House of Representatives need a majority vote from both political parties in order to initiate the Impeachment Inquiry, or that the House of Representatives simply need a majority vote - period - in order to initiate it?
I am not asking a question I am posing an argument.
My argument is that any "Business"[action] of the House can only be convened by a quorum through a majority of [each party] members present who vote on a resolution to take such action.
The final vote will always take place in the Senate, but there is definitely a requirement that a vote be undertaken in the House before they lead us down the rabbit holes that Schiff has on this one.
Schiff and Pelosi should be expelled for their treason.
This post was edited on 10/23/19 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 10/23/19 at 10:41 pm to ConwayGamecock
And thank you for playing. I would like feedback on this question from the board as it seems like it could be hangup on the kangaroo court and force Pelosi's hand.
Posted on 10/23/19 at 11:09 pm to PhDoogan
quote:
House "shall have the sole power of Impeachment"
The Constitution says this: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
It says House of Reps, not House, regardless House would mean ALL members get to vote to determine if impeachment is an article of business the House wants to pursue.
Right now only Schiff and Pelosi have voted. Pelosi has granted Schiff permission to conduct an unconstitutional impeachment inquiry. They do NOT have that authority. That authority resides in a majority of those elected to the House. "We The People" have sent our Representatives to the House to conduct business on our behalf. 2 people have no constitutional authority to authorize any articles of business or resolutions.
Pelosi and Schiff would be prosecuted or removed for dereliction of duty.
quote:
Section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
A majority constitutes a Quorum to do business, and there is no Quorum for impeachment.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News