- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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
re: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: No more one-party impeachments.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:18 am to OmniPundit
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:18 am to OmniPundit
5/8ths
0
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Political parties ARE not mentioned in the constitution. Political parties SHOULD not be mentioned in the constitution.
You are correct about them not being in the constitution. But isn't ignoring that they exist sort of an ostrich effect?
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:31 am to OmniPundit
quote:No.
You are correct about them not being in the constitution. But isn't ignoring that they exist sort of an ostrich effect?
American political parties are simply coalitions, comprised of smaller ideological groups. For instance, the GOP is a coalition of 3 to 5 disparate groups with some overlap, depending upon how you define them. The Democratic Party is an even more crazy coalition quilt.
A perfect example is the group called the “neoconservatives.“ They started life as Democrats, and they shifted to the GOP in the 1960s and early 1970s. Lately, there has been some discussion that they are shifting back toward the Democrat side. How do you draft a constitutional provision that accounts for such shifting allegiance? Is it even wise to do so?
It would be shortsighted (and open a bag of unintended consequences) to draft broad constitutional principles based upon shifting political alliances.
Other posters have suggested more-concrete, substantive changes in the underlying process. That would make more sense
This post was edited on 12/19/19 at 9:40 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:35 am to OmniPundit
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/20/20 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:35 am to OmniPundit
The old “grid lock” and occasional compromise of a mixed party congress will now be replaced by endless show trial impeachment’s. We are Botswana now.
Thanks a lot dems.
Thanks a lot dems.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:39 am to OmniPundit
My only commentary on the impeachment proceedings is as follows.
Republicans, all up in arms this morning over impeachment, would do well to remember that once upon a time, they were all hell bent and double triggered to impeach a president for sexual impropriety; a matter that should of remained between that sitting president, his wife, and the mistress involved.
But yet here we are.
Now if you are having any difficulty ascertaining between the severity of the two transgressions - one is a little extra marital side action and the other is attempting to coerce a foreign power to investigate your political rival for the office of president in the upcoming election and an American citizen.
If you cannot see the difference between the two and still not understand why we are here then your allegiance to a particular side is blinding you to the obvious.
Republicans, all up in arms this morning over impeachment, would do well to remember that once upon a time, they were all hell bent and double triggered to impeach a president for sexual impropriety; a matter that should of remained between that sitting president, his wife, and the mistress involved.
But yet here we are.
Now if you are having any difficulty ascertaining between the severity of the two transgressions - one is a little extra marital side action and the other is attempting to coerce a foreign power to investigate your political rival for the office of president in the upcoming election and an American citizen.
If you cannot see the difference between the two and still not understand why we are here then your allegiance to a particular side is blinding you to the obvious.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 9:42 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The old “grid lock” and occasional compromise of a mixed party congress will now be replaced by endless show trial impeachment’s. We are Botswana now.
Thanks a lot dems.
I agree. We may be approaching where impeachment is used like a "no-confidence" vote is used in some other countries, completely ignoring the will of the electorate.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 10:04 am to OmniPundit
quote:
"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."
Holy shite, you actually want to put this shite into the Constitution?
Can you tell me what else the Constitution has to say about political parties?
Posted on 12/19/19 at 10:09 am to OmniPundit
I think the rules for impeachment is 70% of the House has to be a yes vote and of that 70% at least 35% has to be the minority party to ensure it's not a partisan hit job.....We'll call it the Trump amendment.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 10:10 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
quote: "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."
Holy shite, you actually want to put this shite into the Constitution? Can you tell me what else the Constitution has to say about political parties?
We have to do something to reign you Dim fools in or you're going to destroy the damn country.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 10:18 am to HeadLightBanDit
quote:
My only commentary on the impeachment proceedings is as follows. Republicans, all up in arms this morning over impeachment, would do well to remember that once upon a time, they were all hell bent and double triggered to impeach a president for sexual impropriety; a matter that should of remained between that sitting president, his wife, and the mistress involved. But yet here we are.
Wrong! The original crimes that the R's were trying to nail Clinton with dealt with White Water and other shady business shenanigans that took place when the Clinton's ran Arkansas. The Clinton's were known to be dirty long before Bill showed up on Arsenio Hall with his saxophone ...Monica was just another item the R's stumbled across thanks to Linda Tripp.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 10:20 am to HeadLightBanDit
quote:
Republicans, all up in arms this morning over impeachment, would do well to remember that once upon a time, they were all hell bent and double triggered to impeach a president for sexual impropriety; a matter that should of remained between that sitting president, his wife, and the mistress involved.
But yet here we are.
Now if you are having any difficulty ascertaining between the severity of the two transgressions - one is a little extra marital side action and the other is attempting to coerce a foreign power to investigate your political rival for the office of president in the upcoming election and an American citizen.
Except that Clinton was caught committing perjury.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 10:22 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
We have to do something to reign you Dim fools in or you're going to destroy the damn country.
So you think requiring political parties in the Constitution is reigning anything in?
Jesus, you people are just too stupid to be believed.
I have never been a member of any political party, and I think putting language in the Constitution essentially requiring political parties would not just be counter-productive, but would also simply be batshit crazy.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:10 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Shall we put you down as preferring the "ostrich approach" to recognizing that they exist in all Republic and democratic countries?
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:13 am to OmniPundit
quote:
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."
It doesn’t get any dumber than that. The constitution should not consider political parties in any respect. There’s a reason they aren’t mentioned at all.
You would want to codify the existence of a two party structure? Horrible idea.
Eta: why are people so riled up on preventing “partisan impeachment” in the House? Let them do what they want. It. Is. Meaningless. Without. Removal.
Let it go.
This post was edited on 12/19/19 at 11:15 am
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:17 am to HeadLightBanDit
quote:
you cannot see the difference between the two and still not understand why we are here then your allegiance to a particular side is blinding you to the obvious.
This. The GOP has a hand in this—Republicans established the precedent for impeaching the President for total nonsense in 1998.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:21 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The GOP has a hand in this—Republicans established the precedent for impeaching the President for total nonsense in 1998.
Perjury = nonsense?
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:39 am to OmniPundit
quote:
Shall we put you down as preferring the "ostrich approach"
You think codifying a two-party system in the Constitution is a good idea?
I'll go ahead and pencil you in for the "window-licking approach".
Remember, the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
Posted on 12/19/19 at 11:50 am to Indefatigable
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/20/20 at 12:46 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News