Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

originally posted by: schuyler
The "Power of Impeachment" means that only the HoR can impeach,

The "Power of Impeachment", as that term is used in the Constitution, can only mean "any and all actions related to the impeachment process". An 'impeachment inquiry/investigation' falls within the meaning of this term. This is my statement 2.

Do keep up.

I think you did not read my OP, or I wouldn't have to ask:

Which of my numbered statements do you disagree with?

which itself means suggesting removing someone from office.

The final part of the process, yes. But "the Power of Impeachment" must, on its face, also include the power to investigate potentially impeachable offenses. Impeachment is a process. A charge is made. An determination of whether or not the charge(s) are credible and worthy of pursuing. If so, an impeachment inquiry/investigation is initiated, to determine if there is ample evidence to Impeach. It is similar to, but not the same as an indictment process.

What you are suggesting is that it would take the entire House to authorize an investigation.

Ummm... if you actually read my OP, that would be crystal clear and certainly wouldn't need your clarification, so again, apparently you didn't read it.

I see nothing in the US Constitution that prevents the House from investigating anything at all, from UFOs to Commies in government, e.g. the McCarthy hearings.

Our Government operates on the principle of delegated Powers.

Article I sets out the delegation of Powers with respect to the Legislative branch.

Section II defines the House of Representatives.

There are a few incidental references to the HoR later, but nothing of any consequence to this discussion.

The HoR is not an investigate body, it is a legislative body. Do you understand the difference?

The HoR's ordinary oversight authority is strictly limited to legislative oversight. Yes, it can initiate informal 'investigations' into anything they want (that the people who elected them let them get away with), but they do not have the power to compel testimony or issue legally enforceable subpoenas unless it is pursuant to their delegated power/authority.

The HoR has not yet impeached anyone; they are only investigating the issues.

I agree - and currently it is merely an informal investigation, because it has not been authorized by the whole House.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Please, seeing as how you brought it up

show "inquiry" for impeachment in the constitution


we all want this legal right??

Don't you think an investigation would be required though? How would they know if the whistleblower is worth their time to push an impeachment?

Obviously, there are certain things I disagree with such as should Republicans be shut out from the investigation. Overall, it makes sense for an investigation to happen before articles of impeachment are written to be pushed to the Senate. I just feel the investigation is being done unethically. That's my 2 cents.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Figured you may find these interesting.

“Anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause, because the alternative is assassination.”

Ben Franklin

“In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Alexander Hamilton

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the King of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable: There is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable, no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.

Alexander Hamilton

originally posted by: Byrd
Correct.

However, an investigation (which is carried out by committee, not the full House) is different than an impeachment. We are currently in the investigation phase.

-snip- another 'liar liar pants on fire' comment

I'm beginning to think there are a lot of people here who cannot read, much less with comprehension.

Did you read my OP? I think not, otherwise, you would have stated which of my 4 statements that you disagree with.

In case you missed it, this thread is about what the Constitution requires, not what some British courts did back in 1774.

If you want to disagree about what the Constitution means, and whether it means what it says, you'll need to resort to either logic/reason, as I did, or provide one or more citations from any of the numerous published articles on the debates of the ratification of the Constitution as evidence.

In other words, this is a Constitutional question.

I submitted my arguments on why I think the Constitution means what I say it means.

Your turn.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Both the House and Senate have committees that the full bodies of each chamber apply standardized rules for appointment thereupon. The reason they have these committees is so that the full membership doesn't need to vote on everything that comes up and can be directed at the specific committee for further consideration who determine if it should be sent to the full body for a vote.

These are the long established rules dating back to the 1st Congress.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanstaafl

Figured you may find these interesting.

Excellent, yes, thanks!

“Anyone who wishes to be president should support an impeachment clause, because the alternative is assassination.”

Ben Franklin

“In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Alexander Hamilton

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the King of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable: There is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable, no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.

Alexander Hamilton

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

Both the House and Senate have committees...

-snip- another 'liar liar pants on fire' commentard...

a reply to: tanstaafl

What part of the House and Senate having agreed upon committees is a lie?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Trump cultists? I will pretend that I didn't read that and
move along.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Obviously, there are certain things I disagree with such as should Republicans be shut out from the investigation.

They aren't. There are 47 Republicans among the select committees that are able to participate in the hearings, including having equal time to question the witness. Only committee members are allowed in. Other committee's members, whether they be Republican or Democrats are not allowed in, according to house rules.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

The link thinly answers some questions but, ..

Where in the Constitution is ""The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary"" ?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: schuyler
The "Power of Impeachment" means that only the HoR can impeach,

The "Power of Impeachment", as that term is used in the Constitution, can only mean "any and all actions related to the impeachment process". An 'impeachment inquiry/investigation' falls within the meaning of this term. This is my statement 2.

Do keep up.

I think you did not read my OP, or I wouldn't have to ask:

Which of my numbered statements do you disagree with?

All of them. You are acting in a superior manner, which is not justified. I see no reason at all to accept your terms here. You do not present any superior knowledge of the subject; indeed, the opposite. Unless you have some sort of bona fides you are not displaying, I see no reason your interpretation here is in any way superior. Are you a Constitutional scholar? An attorney? I thought not. In case you haven't noticed (and I see no evidence you have), the discussion is not going your way. No one believes you. Get off your high horse and actually join the discussion if you want. So far, what you have said is not impressive.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl
What part of the House and Senate having agreed upon committees is a lie?

I didn't say that was a lie. I said your entire comment was a 'liar liar pants on fire' response.

I said that because you didn't read my OP, or just decided you wanted to toss an irrelevant comment out without actually having to expend a few brain-cells to make an argument.

So, by all means - which of my 4 statements do you disagree with?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I really hope they do impeach him, that way when it goes to the Senate we can drag out the skeletons from all the shady Democrat closets while they're under oath.

I think the way this has been carried out, it would serve the Democrats right if Cocaine Mitch resurfaced in the Senate to run the trial.

Could you see him dragging the proceedings out in such a way that as soon as Warren takes the nomination, he announces the trial has proceeded on to a new phase and that as he makes the rules as per precedent set by his colleague Speaker Pelosi, he decides every Senator *must* be present to witness all testimony and see all evidence since so much was hidden in the House, including candidate Warren who is still a Senator for this function.

Then watch him drag it out through all of campaign season.

originally posted by: schuyler
All of them. You are acting in a superior manner, which is not justified.

I am making a declarative statement, as if I know what I'm talking about, and challenging you/others who disagree to prove me wrong.

This is how debate works.

Ahhh... I figured you out... you have a huge stack of participation trophy's at home, and think they mean something, don't you?

I see no reason at all to accept your terms here.

Obviously - because you cannot make a valid argument against it. Classical leftist know-nothing ploy.

You do not present any superior knowledge of the subject;

Correct. I present an argument.

Try it sometime.

Unless you have some sort of bona fides you are not displaying, I see no reason your interpretation here is in any way superior. Are you a Constitutional scholar? An attorney? I thought not.

Our founders were brilliant. They wrote the Constitution in the language of the common man. The meaning of pretty much any term of consequence was debated in numerous publications in written form, and still available today for anyone willing to read them to do so.

My credentials? I could tell you whatever I wanted and you wouldn't believe me, so, really, does it matter?

In case you haven't noticed (and I see no evidence you have), the discussion is not going your way. No one believes you.

Really? There hasn't been one legitimate challenger, other than a few 'liar liar' responses like yours.

Get off your high horse and actually join the discussion if you want. So far, what you have said is not impressive.

I wasn't trying to be impressive. I was offering to debate anyone on the meaning of one, simple clause in our Constitution.

So far, no one has been willing to actually take me up on it.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Don't you think an investigation would be required though? How would they know if the whistleblower is worth their time to push an impeachment?

Of course an investigation would be required. Too bad they haven't started a formal one yet.

Obviously, there are certain things I disagree with such as should Republicans be shut out from the investigation.

This is why no other meaning makes sense with respect to the Power of Impeachment. This is why I started this thread.

The only way such a formidable power should be wielded is by the House of Representatives. The whole House. By vote.

Nothing else makes sense, and is the only way to make it as fair as possible.

Motions before the House are either voted upon, sent to committee or tabled. Arbitrary decisions cannot be done for very obvious reasons of checks and balances. But that is where we are outside of it being called an inquiry. Which is why the White House claims the House does not have power of compulsion with subpoenas.

It may take a Supreme Court decision to straighten out the power grab going on currently. And they can step in even after the Senate makes a decision and say the the process was done incorrectly and Impeachment is overruled.

Wouldn’t that be interesting...

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

True.

However, where does it say that the dems can make # up, cry outrage, and use it as grounds for impeachment ?

And do they get a free pass when it comes to facing your accuser, which is a constitutional right?
Like the whistleblower getting anonymity? No need to provide actual proof/evidence/victim of a crime?

And do they get to keep changing the story on why/how they can proceed?

As in, the whistleblower angle isn't working, so change the narrative to taxes/emoulants clauses/ he's orange and we don't like him.

How about a little more solidarity or fortitude from the dems before anything they say is even remotely taken seriously?

Tantrums are not enough to # over a whole country, you need to have your # in order and be pure as the driven snow, if you want to up and decide to remove a President without due process.


Perhaps if they weren't acting like spoiled piss-ants, more people would be on board, but for the time being, they have nothing more than childish tantrums.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Glad we agree that the dirt on both sides should come out.