- 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: Thanks founding Fathers, Not!
Posted on 1/28/20 at 11:26 am to CelticDog
Posted on 1/28/20 at 11:26 am to CelticDog
quote:
Holding congressionally allocated funds that were intended to be used in.the armed conflict between russia and ukraine. Undermined congressional foreign policy solely to get propaganda against biden, who was leading all candidates in the then current polling.
One more time for the short bus riders:
None of that happened.
You're welcome.
0
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:16 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:You have to know where to look.
is not defined in the Constitution itself.
This is not the place to display your ignorance.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:19 pm to Zach
quote:
There is a LOT that the founders explained about the intent of the different sections of the Constitution that is contained in their letters, papers and speeches. It takes some reading. They didn't want the document to be 1,000 pages long.
There is no question about this. They were geniuses. My purpose in the thread was to spark conversation. And that is it doesn't matter WTF the founders meant. Right now in our crazy heterogeneous society nobody cares about the founders and some even loathe them. I'm a senior citizen. I don't know if my kids know or care anything about the history of the founders and the constitution. And because of this it's possible a majority of our society nods in numbed affirmative belief that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors because most people don't know WTF that even is. Nancy and Adam and Gerald and Chuckie think they can say and then let it be done. That they can rid our country of Trump.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:33 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
There is no question about this. They were geniuses. My purpose in the thread was to spark conversation. And that is it doesn't matter WTF the founders meant. Right now in our crazy heterogeneous society nobody cares about the founders and some even loathe them. I'm a senior citizen. I don't know if my kids know or care anything about the history of the founders and the constitution. And because of this it's possible a majority of our society nods in numbed affirmative belief that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors because most people don't know WTF that even is. Nancy and Adam and Gerald and Chuckie think they can say and then let it be done. That they can rid our country of Trump.
I agree. And that's why ignorance of history is dangerous. The sad thing is that American history is not only interesting...it's extremely short.
German students take 4 years of German history. As one of them told me, 'Our history is a lot longer than yours.'
Posted on 1/28/20 at 12:55 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself. This wording from the constitution is what has us in the mess we are in. So high crimes are not really defined nor are the misdemeanors. And now with the twits in the House a President can impeached for about anything. Those bastards got most of it right but got this wrong!
That was kind of the point. If the House and Senate (and by extension the people) agree that someone should no longer be president, they could remove the person for any reason they agreed was sufficient. This is supposed to act as a natural check on the president's power and his/her ability to operate too far outside the will of the populous.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:14 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
Our founding fathers expected adults to be in the House and Senate and for voters to do their jobs.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:16 pm to jbgleason
jbgleason
I could be wrong but I thought Dershowitz said that at the time the Constitution was debated/written that some misdemeanors could result in death.
quote:
A misdemeanor is a violation of a criminal statute the potential jail sentence of which is less than one year.
I could be wrong but I thought Dershowitz said that at the time the Constitution was debated/written that some misdemeanors could result in death.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:28 pm to CelticDog
quote:
or you can say it was more like treason than a misdemeanor
Lol so let's suggest the thing that's punishable by death why don't we. You are one of the top 3 worst and most uninformed people who shouldn't be allowed to post on this board.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 1:33 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Our founding fathers expected adults to be in the House and Senate and for voters to do their jobs.
Their expectations were justifiably high because the voters were all white males.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 2:46 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
Yes, this is clearly the fault of the Founding Fathers.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 2:51 pm to jbgleason
quote:
one would assume a High Crime would equate to a felony.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 2:55 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Those bastards got most of it right but got this wrong!
Nah. At some point if a political party is willing to do something that is so obviously opposed to the intent of the constitution...there is nothing that can be done. We are at a stage in our country where the only thing that matters is winning politically. It means more than the impact on the country. The founding fathers were powerless to prevent this. This is the job of the citizens.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 2:58 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
I said weeks ago that the criteria for impeachment needs to be tightened up considerably ,.....this BS is too serious to allow wandering minds afflicted with TDS to pull this shite again.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 3:02 pm to blackinthesaddle
quote:
That was kind of the point. If the House and Senate (and by extension the people) agree that someone should no longer be president, they could remove the person for any reason they agreed was sufficient. This is supposed to act as a natural check on the president's power and his/her ability to operate too far outside the will of the populous.
Underrated post, but I can see why it's being ignored - it makes too much damned sense.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 3:14 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
A three page thread, and still no one has actually looked up what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in the context of Art. 2, Sec. 4.
It does indeed come from British law. "High" does not describe the crime as much as the offender. High crimes are committed by high officials who have the public's trust. Examples of high crimes include
Many people on this board seem to have this trial confused with a criminal trial. There is no penalty phase of this trial, because there is really no penalty for losing the trial except you lose your job. Presidents who are removed from office through the impeachment process don't go to jail. So don't think of it as a criminal trial as much as being brought into the bosses office as he examines your behavior and how it reflects on the company. You don't have to commit a crime to be fired from your job. that's all this trail is, should this public servant be fired from his job. NOT, should he go to jail for breaking the law.
The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W Bush from Office
It does indeed come from British law. "High" does not describe the crime as much as the offender. High crimes are committed by high officials who have the public's trust. Examples of high crimes include
Many people on this board seem to have this trial confused with a criminal trial. There is no penalty phase of this trial, because there is really no penalty for losing the trial except you lose your job. Presidents who are removed from office through the impeachment process don't go to jail. So don't think of it as a criminal trial as much as being brought into the bosses office as he examines your behavior and how it reflects on the company. You don't have to commit a crime to be fired from your job. that's all this trail is, should this public servant be fired from his job. NOT, should he go to jail for breaking the law.
quote:
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.
The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W Bush from Office
Posted on 1/28/20 at 3:27 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.
Sure but its supported in many documents,, papers, court opinions/dissents, etc that the founders clearly altered the specifics and purpose of the British impeachment, opting for a more specific, less encompassing power of impeachment. For example maladministration was excluded after being considered. For this reason, many do not consider policy disagreements legitimately impeachable.
I do not blindly accept a British statute with purpose supporting political removal when the founders had clearly deliberated this and chose a narrower the scope of impeachment.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 3:37 pm to jbgleason
quote:
A misdemeanor is a violation of a criminal statute the potential jail sentence of which is less than one year.
Dersh showed that it was different at the time the Constitution was put together.
For instance there were such things as capital misdemeanors. Death for theft.
Hardly the same as a misdemeanors today and showed that in the classic sense the Framers were talking about very serious crimes. Not jaywalking.
Posted on 1/28/20 at 3:42 pm to AMS
quote:
Sure but its supported in many documents,, papers, court opinions/dissents, etc that the founders clearly altered the specifics and purpose of the British impeachment, opting for a more specific, less encompassing power of impeachment. For example maladministration was excluded after being considered. For this reason, many do not consider policy disagreements legitimately impeachable.
I do not blindly accept a British statute with purpose supporting political removal when the founders had clearly deliberated this and chose a narrower the scope of impeachment.
That's all fine, but my point still stands, "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to high public officials betraying the public trust, and doesn't necessarily refer to statutory crimes.
ie, this is NOT a criminal trial.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News