Comments on: Is the Constitution Unconstitutional?

By: LT

LT — Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:37:38 +0000

>>>The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. (Article 1, Section 2)<<< I think the point is that the House has the power of impeachment and, as of yet, the House has done nothing. Remember, the House acts by vote of the body, not by declarations of individual members. The Constitution does not give the power of impeachment to individuals in the house, or to a subset of the House, but to the House. This is the same "House" that chooses speakers and officers. That is not done by a few people but by a vote of the House. In the same way, the House impeaches, not a few members of the House. Why won't Pelosi bring an impeachment vote to the House floor? That is a much more interesting question. She surely has the votes for it. So why doesn't she put it on the floor and put GOP members in the place of having to vote one way or the other?

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Tue, 15 Oct 2019 13:55:13 +0000

Trump’s verbal constipation (if only!) is unconstipational.

By: Headless Unicorn Guy

Headless Unicorn Guy — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:52:30 +0000

In reply to ken.

The purpose of the letter does matter here though. Clearly it is intended to stir the base into thinking that what congress is doing is unconstitutional.
Some months ago, there was a mention in TIME magazine that Trump’s 2020 strategy is to whip his Base into greater and greater heights of fanaticism, ignore everyone else, and let those Base fanatics do the job. Twitterstorm after Twitterstorm.

Personally, I think that’s a VERY risky strategy, but there’s always the Twittercall for a Second Amendment Solution if it fails. And the Nuclear Football as the ultimate backup plan.

By: Headless Unicorn Guy

Headless Unicorn Guy — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:52:30 +0000

In reply to ken.

Personally, I think that’s a VERY risky strategy, but there’s always the Twittercall for a Second Amendment Solution if it fails. And the Nuclear Football as the ultimate backup plan.

By: ken

ken — Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:46:36 +0000

In reply to OrthoAnabaptist. contacting your reps and senators, esp. the GOP ones, is a good idea. If the Repubs in congress realize that they have pissed off enough people they are going to forget about Trump's base. they will realize they might not get re-elected w/o Trump's base, but that they definitely won't get re-elected if that is all they have.

By: OrthoAnabaptist

OrthoAnabaptist — Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:47:46 +0000

We are in a Constitutional crisis for sure now… and I’m not sure there’s much we ordinary people can do? Call our representatives? (Is it worth calling our GOP ones?) Pray the courts hold the line on the rule of law? If Trump gets away with everything he’d like to in this crisis, then it’s game over, because every other right-winger/religious right (and maybe extreme left as well) will begin to operate with like impunity as much as they can.

By: Warren Throckmorton

Warren Throckmorton — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:38:52 +0000

In reply to MyPetSlug.

Here is a good article spelling it out. https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house-vote-authorize-impeachment-inquiry?

House committees have subpoena power right now. Members of the Obama administration were subpoenaed to testified and with one exception I can recall, they did so.

By: MyPetSlug

MyPetSlug — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:49:07 +0000

In reply to richard.

Could someone show me where in the constitution it says an impeachment inquiry is like a grand jury, denying the president the basic constitutional rights afforded to every citizen ?

100% what Jeff Ryan said. But, also, even if it were true that the president was denied "basic constitutional rights afforded to every citizen", he is also immune from criminal prosecution while in office *unlike* any other citizen. This makes impeachment the *only* way to remove a president who has allegedly committed crimes and a rather much different situation than any other citizen.

By: 2019 still here Ellie2

2019 still here Ellie2 — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:00:15 +0000

In reply to DoctorDJ. Man must have to carry around a bucket of wipes with him; he has so much blood on his hands.

By: Jeff Ryan

Jeff Ryan — Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:24:09 +0000

In reply to ken. No, it really doesn't. I have seen lawyers grieved for far less. And Cipollone's position is an aggravating factor. He would have a better argument if it was a legal filing. He could then claim he was arguing for a change in the law. It's not a winning argument, but it's an argument. But given his position, and who he represents, he's on much thinner ice here.