- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: No more one-party impeachments.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 4:44 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 4:44 am
Some of the founding fathers recognized that impeachment had the possibility of being used as a political ploy to essentially overturn an election. Their concern has now been fulfilled.
Now that "the cat is out of the bag", is impeachment the new "business as usual", whenever the majority of the house members and the President are of different political parties?
To prevent this, I would suggest an amendment to the constitution, similar to the following: "To pass, the impeachment charge must be supported by at least X% of the members of each of the two political parties having largest membership in the house."
Your opinions, and what should X% be?
Now that "the cat is out of the bag", is impeachment the new "business as usual", whenever the majority of the house members and the President are of different political parties?
To prevent this, I would suggest an amendment to the constitution, similar to the following: "To pass, the impeachment charge must be supported by at least X% of the members of each of the two political parties having largest membership in the house."
Your opinions, and what should X% be?
22
Posted on 12/19/19 at 4:47 am to OmniPundit
Should have a 2/3 majority (regardless of party)
Posted on 12/19/19 at 4:51 am to Wally Sparks
I considered that approach as well. Either might work. Is 2/3 so high that there could never be an impeachment, regardless of the circumstances? The same could be true of X% was set too high.
My bottom line: We as a country needs to do something to correct the problem.
My bottom line: We as a country needs to do something to correct the problem.
This post was edited on 12/19/19 at 4:56 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:16 am to OmniPundit
Making it 2/3 just like it’s 2/3 in the senate to remove would be best IMO.
like we’ve all said. Impeachment shouldn’t be partisan. How do you make it bipartisan? you make it to where the amount to impeach HAS to come from
Both parties.
You say 2/3s is so high that it will never be reached. Impeachment is an option that should never be used unless the situation is so dire that at least that amount feel it’s so.
Also remember the part system really doesn’t mean jack shite. People can change parties or become independent whenever they want to. Making a requirement of having two parties would just make Ds back out of the D party and become independents. Then a bipartisan attempt of Democratics and independents would impeach.
like we’ve all said. Impeachment shouldn’t be partisan. How do you make it bipartisan? you make it to where the amount to impeach HAS to come from
Both parties.
You say 2/3s is so high that it will never be reached. Impeachment is an option that should never be used unless the situation is so dire that at least that amount feel it’s so.
Also remember the part system really doesn’t mean jack shite. People can change parties or become independent whenever they want to. Making a requirement of having two parties would just make Ds back out of the D party and become independents. Then a bipartisan attempt of Democratics and independents would impeach.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:19 am to OmniPundit
The law of unintended consequences says no.
I would prefer an amendment that allows a president to run for re-election for a third term should the house launch an impeachment proceeding against him that is rejected by the senate.
But even that has perils. You need to understand that this isn’t politics as usual. We are fighting a cold civil war.
You think we won this week because the senate won’t remove from office? Look at the budget bill. The democrats are getting most of what they want. But hey, we raised the smoking age to 21 as a nod to big insurance. Illegals are allowed to sponsor illegal kids and are immune from ICE deportation.
...but watch the shiny impeachment object.
I would prefer an amendment that allows a president to run for re-election for a third term should the house launch an impeachment proceeding against him that is rejected by the senate.
But even that has perils. You need to understand that this isn’t politics as usual. We are fighting a cold civil war.
You think we won this week because the senate won’t remove from office? Look at the budget bill. The democrats are getting most of what they want. But hey, we raised the smoking age to 21 as a nod to big insurance. Illegals are allowed to sponsor illegal kids and are immune from ICE deportation.
...but watch the shiny impeachment object.
This post was edited on 12/19/19 at 5:23 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:29 am to OmniPundit
I'd be more interested in setting some definitions on "high crimes and misdemeanors"
I would like for some hard and fast RULEs be part of the constitution, rather than allowing the majority to set up another kangaroo court.
I would like to see a prohibition of anything that could be reasonably described as a "policy difference"
I would like to see any 'inferences on motives' be disallowed.
the idea of just having a majority doesn't bother me as much as the capacity to establish an unfair process that is prone to political mischief.
In fact = I'd be oK with an amendment that said not much more than = "See what the 116th congress did? --- DON'T DO THAT" - and name it the Pelosi/Schiff Amendment.
I would like for some hard and fast RULEs be part of the constitution, rather than allowing the majority to set up another kangaroo court.
I would like to see a prohibition of anything that could be reasonably described as a "policy difference"
I would like to see any 'inferences on motives' be disallowed.
the idea of just having a majority doesn't bother me as much as the capacity to establish an unfair process that is prone to political mischief.
In fact = I'd be oK with an amendment that said not much more than = "See what the 116th congress did? --- DON'T DO THAT" - and name it the Pelosi/Schiff Amendment.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:29 am to GatorReb
quote:
How do you make it bipartisan? you make it to where the amount to impeach HAS to come from
Both parties.
As I wrote above I considered both my original message, and a 2/3 or similar requirement. I selected the form given in my original message for exactly this reason: To insure that any vote to impeach was bipartisan.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:37 am to OmniPundit
2/3 is way too high
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:38 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
2/3 is way too high
Why?
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:41 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
Should have a 2/3 majority (regardless of party)
Impeachment was a much more important check on the power of the president when a president did not have term limits
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:44 am to Wally Sparks
Because it allows a core group of partisan representatives to defend "their guy" even if a large number of their party is for impeachment.
Let's assume the president being impeached is from the majority house party - the minority house votes party 100% for impeachment. You could have a significant portion of the president's own party voting for impeachment and still have it denied.
Make it some sort of bipartisan rule, but a low level imo.
ETA: voters need to make their voice known about how they feel in the voting booth - I'm afraid the voter base is too partisan on both sides to be willing to exercise that power though.
Let's assume the president being impeached is from the majority house party - the minority house votes party 100% for impeachment. You could have a significant portion of the president's own party voting for impeachment and still have it denied.
Make it some sort of bipartisan rule, but a low level imo.
ETA: voters need to make their voice known about how they feel in the voting booth - I'm afraid the voter base is too partisan on both sides to be willing to exercise that power though.
This post was edited on 12/19/19 at 5:47 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 5:50 am to OmniPundit
quote:
To insure that any vote to impeach was bipartisan.
Ok like I said. If you had a Dem majority that wanted someone out then half of them could swap to independent and it would bipartisan by Independents and democrats. Then swap back when it’s over.
And to the other that said 2/3s is too high. Why? Do you also think 2/3s to remove in the senate is too high?
And remember. People have to remember this. Impeachment shouldn’t be a tool used every freaking election cycle. It SHOULD be super hard to impeach.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:11 am to GatorReb
quote:
I considered that approach as well. Either might work. Is 2/3 so high that there could never be an impeachment, regardless of the circumstances? The same could be true of X% was set too high.
I did not SAY 2/3 was too high; I played devil's advocate, and ASKED if 2/3 was too high.
BTW, I absolutely agree with your statement that "Impeachment shouldn’t be a tool used every freaking election cycle. It SHOULD be super hard to impeach." That is exactly where I'm coming from. How do we accomplish this as a nation?
This post was edited on 12/19/19 at 6:20 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:22 am to OmniPundit
quote:
BTW, I absolutely agree with your statement that "Impeachment shouldn’t be a tool used every freaking election cycle. It SHOULD be super hard to impeach." How do we accomplish this as a nation?
I agree that it shouldn't be used as a tool, but I don't want to unnecessarily hinder impeachment in the event it is necessary at some point - i feel that the latter scenario is far worse than an impeachment happening and getting thrown out of the senate.
The way to do this is (1) voters using their power to not re-elect people who support this (obviously looking at close races in district a strong r presence in this case) and (2) somehow working to get the reasonable, silent middle ground of both parties to come together and stop giving the radical minority so much power. The radical side just gets people wound up so much more and the middle is very much disengaged it seems.
Doing that is going to be difficult, its going to take a concerted effort of people to react against the partisan rhetoric and work on bringing the country forward, together.
While I was happy Trump beat Hillary and has helped exposed establishment media and all that, his rhetoric has not done a whole lot to win over moderate democrats - some are coming over despite that because of how much they hate the far left / socialist movement. I feel like if he controlled his rhetoric a little bit better, he could do a whole lot more as a popular / populist candidate.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:45 am to OmniPundit
We NEED an honest press and a reasonable populace (not focused on government authoritarianism).
In the earlier days of our country there would be an uproar that would let these politicians know they’re in trouble for such a deceitful, partisan coup “impeachment” sham. Impeachment was created for a reason, and this is not that reason.
If the press reported the truth and rebuked the abuse of power this abortion is, (and the democrat lemmings could also believe that 2 and 2 is 4) then these anti-American politicians would have zero chance of re-election. Alas, still too many will blindly vote dem in the next go round.
In the earlier days of our country there would be an uproar that would let these politicians know they’re in trouble for such a deceitful, partisan coup “impeachment” sham. Impeachment was created for a reason, and this is not that reason.
If the press reported the truth and rebuked the abuse of power this abortion is, (and the democrat lemmings could also believe that 2 and 2 is 4) then these anti-American politicians would have zero chance of re-election. Alas, still too many will blindly vote dem in the next go round.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:47 am to AGreySlate
I said this few days ago, should be 2/3 house, same as Senate. It is supposed to be for high crimes, something meaningful so should have the test of 2/3 of House. Also they need another rule that says House turns it over to Senate immediately on the vote instead of this politics like Nancy is playing now.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:55 am to Amblin
quote:
I said this few days ago, should be 2/3 house, same as Senate. It is supposed to be for high crimes, something meaningful so should have the test of 2/3 of House. Also they need another rule that says House turns it over to Senate immediately on the vote instead of this politics like Nancy is playing now.
Surely the founders would’ve never thought it would be used in such a partisan manner to take out a president who has done nothing wrong but get elected.
I also assume that they intended it to be a package deal of “this is what it takes to impeach” so it’s all done at one time, and once voted upon moved onward to the senate. Not that it’d get pieced together strictly as a political weapon.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:55 am to GatorReb
quote:
And to the other that said 2/3s is too high. Why? Do you also think 2/3s to remove in the senate is too high?
As I stated earlier - I am more interesting in tigthning up the process by defining rights and establishing definitions of terms.
In absence of that, I would support a 2/3 requirement for passage to the Senate.
Do NOT impose any "party participation" requirements - that is then open to other sorts of chicanery as pointed out above - making a game out of switching parties just for the tactics of circumventing the iteration of the rule.
Leave no rules open for interpretation - and instruct the SCOTUS to strike down any attempts to circumvent the rules by changing or inventing definitions of terms.
In fact - put a Webster's Dictionary as part of the amendment - every word used int the amendment must adhere to the definition contains therein. And in invoking any future impeachement = require that only words from that dictionary be used to define the offense.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 6:57 am to OmniPundit
He rode the birther movement to it's now unwitted conclusion and now you want to change the Constitution. You baws tried everything possible to get the last President. Eight years and no luck, even called his wife a man and him a musszie communist to block a second term, and still he remained in office. They returned the favor in three years, what you tired-n-couldnt do ever, and now you orange guys want to cry foul.
HINT: what goes around comes around
HINT: what goes around comes around
Posted on 12/19/19 at 7:02 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
Because it allows a core group of partisan representatives to defend "their guy" even if a large number of their party is for impeachment.
Let's assume the president being impeached is from the majority house party - the minority house votes party 100% for impeachment. You could have a significant portion of the president's own party voting for impeachment and still have it denied.
Make it some sort of bipartisan rule, but a low level imo.
ETA: voters need to make their voice known about how they feel in the voting booth - I'm afraid the voter base is too partisan on both sides to be willing to exercise that power though.
Impeachment thresholds should not be based on percentage of parties.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News