Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

a reply to: Gryphon66

There are pictures in my copy.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


I threw in the 10th as a reminder that people do retain a very special right of protection from the government just arbitrarily granting themselves new powers and procedures to screw you over. Or did Trump relinquish those rights when taking the oath of office?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Your points are very well taken in regard to criminal proceedings.

Impeachment and removal though are criminal proceedings as SPECIFICALLY limited by the Constitution:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article I Section 3, emphasis mine.

Trump's civil rights against the power of the judiciary kick in after he's removed and subject to the rule of law.

originally posted by: schuyler
Your so-called points have been adequately and completely refuted.

And here we go, the fake claim of a win, without having to do any of the work.

By all means. Point to one - just one, response here, that has "successfully" refuted one, single claim of mine. No 'liar liar pants on fire' responses qualify you know, but since those are the only ones there, I guess that is what you are relying on.

Sorry, any attempt at refutation must be done with logic and reason.

Care to try again?

I wonder how we define Domestic Terrorism in terms of organised Groups of Domestic Politicians and their Supporters who are derailing National Unity and Cohesion ?

Don't worry so much about Impeachment....worry about a Country that allows these Domestic Terrorists to actually thrive as they attempt to undermine American life.

originally posted by: Byrd
As you can see, if you re-read my statement, I agreed with all of your statements.

You claimed you did, by the short 'Correct.' first line response.

You then proceeded to prove that false. That is why I said what I did about not being able to read.

So I'm not sure why you took the tone you did in the rest of that post.

Tell you what... go back and read my very simple, single sentence statement of my claim. Then come back and make your case, in accordance with the OP rules of engagement.

If after reading my claim it still isn't clear re-read it again then read my statement 2 in support.

originally posted by: one4all
I wonder how we define Domestic Terrorism in terms of organised Groups of Domestic Politicians and their Supporters who are derailing National Unity and Cohesion ?

Don't worry so much about Impeachment....worry about a Country that allows these Domestic Terrorists to actually thrive as they attempt to undermine American life.

Define "National Unity and Cohesion" first.

originally posted by: Byrd
The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

Rotflmao!

The HoR is one half of what makes up the Congress. Congress is called the Legislative branch of our 3 branch system of government.

The Judiciary is another branch, and the Executive is the third.

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.)

Yes, but nothing on that page even comes close to supporting either your contention that 'The House operates as a branch of the Judiciary'. That is just an absurd statement on its face.

The fact that they have a some limited powers of investigation when it comes to legislative oversight and engage in hearings that are run in accordance with rules that Roberts Rules of Order were based on.

This certainly does not make them 'a branch of the Judiciary'.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
But it appears like the repubs (at least the ones in congress) don't want that.

They keep trying to block the inquiry.
Are the repubs afraid of what might come out during a senate hearing?

Rotflmao! It is the dems that should be afraid of that.

No, what the Rs are concerned about is the lawless process the dems in the HoR are engaging in, the lawless precedent it is setting, and the threat it poses to the future of our Constitutional Republic. They are attempting to create a condition whereby the Presidency becomes subject to the whim of a lawless Congress.

If not why don't they just sit back and laugh while the dems destroy themselves?

Oh, I have lots of popcorn ready, Barr/Durham just announced that it is n ow officially a criminal investigation. The hammers are getting ready to start dropping, and it is gonna be a wild ride.

Talk about Constitutional requirements
Impeachment Could Mean Most Presidential Candidates Can’t Leave Washington, Or Talk. Sorry, Those Are (Really) The Rules.
"IF" it comes to fruition... Keep in mind the word "IF" LoL

The Impeachment trial in the Senate , Again "IF" it comes to fruition, certainly would curtail several Democratic Candidates running for President. The Schedule would really shackle their campaign efforts as they have to be in session Mon-Sat LoL You can really tell the "Orange Man Bad" crowd has no plan and is only throwing crap at walls hoping beyond hope something sticks .... which isn't ....

Plop Plop fizz Fizz oh what a dilemma the Dems have gotten themselves in

.....An impeachment trial would consume every senator’s schedule. Under the Senate’s current rules, all senators must be in session Monday through Saturday, starting at around noon each day.

The trial may last several weeks — Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial lasted five — thus taking several candidates off the campaign trail the month before the primaries start.

That’s a major problem for the six senators running to be the Democratic nominee for president — Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren........

a reply to: tanstaafl

I really would like to help you see the flaws in this style of argumentation that you've pursued all across ATS.

I already expect I will regret wasting even these brief minutes of my life.

Your argument repeatedly fails because you make assertions with no evidence, you misrepresent the evidence you do present, and then, when that is pointed out to you, you claim your own words as the only relevant authority.

This is the logical fallacy of argument from assertion, i.e. "It's true because I say it's true."

It is also the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum because you keep making that claims that "anybody can see this is true."

It is also the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem because you continually refute the assertions of others based on mere insults.

You're quite obviously a bright person and fairly well-spoken. I would love to play the game with you but you don't seem to understand the rules, or if you do, you refuse to play by them. What a waste.

a reply to: MetalThunder

Do you find it all ironic that in a post that is ostensibly critical of a party misusing Congressional powers for purely political gain, you're advocating for a party to misuse Congressional powers for purely political gain?

That's meta, dude.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
There are 47 Republicans among the select committees that are able to participate in the hearings,

1. No Rs are allowed to call their own witnesses.

2. No Rs are allowed the power to issue subpoenas (though it is clear that, until authorized by the whole House, neither are the dems).

3. The President is not allowed Representation that is also allowed to cross examine witnesses.

4. The Rs are forbidden from discussing anything they learn in the hearings.

5. The Rs are not allowed any copies of transcripts of the hearings.

So... yeah, not so much.

I've even heard, but don't have any evidence I can link to so not including this in my list above, that there has been more than one instance of members who should have been allowed access, being refused.

including having equal time to question the witness.

That is the only thing they are allowed, and since we cannot watch the hearings or read the transcripts to see for ourselves, the only way I have to guess that you may be right is that no Rs have complained about not having equal time. Also, I heard that Ratcliffe destroyed Taylor's so-called testimony in the form of his leaked-by-the-dems 'opening statement' (who refuse to let the Rs have transcripts because they are afraid of 'leaks').

But we can't know that, because it is 'seeeeecret'.

Only committee members are allowed in. Other committee's members, whether they be Republican or Democrats are not allowed in, according to house rules.

Yeah, new rules they created out of thin air that were passed by the dem controlled Committee itself and not the whole House, so, again, lawless.

All I can say for certain is, if the roles were reversed, all we'd be hearing non-stop 24/7 on all of the MSM is how the evil Rs are holding unlawful secret star chamber hearings in an attempt to unseat a duly elected President.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But for purposes of simple understanding, the House is a Grand Jury and the Senate is the trial when it comes to Impeachment. Trump, by all right could be present for every single second of testimony before every committee with the ability to have legal representation exactly like a Grand Jury. He isn’t required to do so, but still has that right.

Except in this particular instance happening under the direction of Pelosi. Not saying she ordered it to be so. Only that it is happening. And that is where the wheels can come off the cart. The motion to censure Schiff was tabled to protect him and allow for this to continue unabated. A motion for a vote of No Confidence in the Speaker cannot be tabled so easy. New Speaker means there may or may not be all new Chairs for the committees.

Sure, it would be a procedural slowdown for the process, but it could be done for each and every new Speaker until the end of the term or some other concession was reached. And they can use that tabled motion on Schiff as the test of a just and fair Speaker so long as it remained tabled instead of address.

Politically speaking, that motion is a good trap that keeps resetting itself for the next rat.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Trump, by all right could be present for every single second of testimony before every committee with the ability to have legal representation exactly like a Grand Jury. He isn’t required to do so, but still has that right.

A potential indictee in a grand jury investigation has no legal basis to challenge anyone or their testimony in a grand jury hearing. The only evidence presented is by the prosecution.

Maybe you're thinking of a preliminary hearing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
OPs "request" for a specific response format in this thread for discussion amounts to a loaded question.

Really? Asking for the simple courtesy of a logical, rational challenge to the specific supporting claim of the 4 statements that I rely on for my general claim, amounts to a loaded question? Ok...

It is extremely obvious most people here have never engaged in a debate where 'liar liar pants on fire' isn't considered a legitimate response to anything - well, other than pointing out that they see a liar whose pants are on fire.

That said:

1. The (whole) House does vote to Impeach

The Constitution doesn't say anything about voting. What the Constitution does is delegate 'the sole Power of Impeachment' to the HoR.

Technically as long as a majority of the House takes a vote noting "X is Impeached" the concept of the (whole) House enacting the Impeachment power is met.

If such a resolution was simply submitted and voted on, without any prior action, yes, that would be true.

2. The (whole) House has voted on what Committees exist, how they will be administered, and what their authorities are by approving the Rules of the House of Representatives. By a majority action, this document empowers the various Committees and members to investigate and issue subpoenas.

Pursuant to their specific jurisdiction, yes. That jurisdiction is limited, you know. They cannot investigate me, a private Citizen, on suspicion of bank robbery, for example.

3. Specifically, the Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress) has prepared a document

Yes, yes, this has already been addressed... but I'll humor you, since you are at least trying to make a valid argument...

From that document, pg. 17:

"Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath, or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-Members, such as when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests that the House may wish to consider impeachment of a federal judge, where an independent counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment, by message from the President, by a charge from a state or territorial legislature or grand jury, or by petition."

No emphasis needed. All of the above would then have to be followed by a vote of the whole House to be pursued.

Proof?

Well, it is interesting that you chose to stop where you did, because, if you simply continue reading, the very next sentence which is at the top of page 18:

"Resolutions regarding impeachment may be of two types. A resolution impeaching a particular individual, who is within the category of impeachable officers under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, is usually referred directly to the House Committee on the Judiciary.154 A resolution to authorize an investigation as to whether grounds exist for the House to exercise its impeachment power is referred to the House Committee on Rules.155 Generally, such a resolution is then referred to the House Judiciary Committee.156 During the House impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon, a resolution reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, H.Res. 803,157 was called up for immediate consideration as a privileged matter. The resolution authorized the House Judiciary Committee to investigate fully whether sufficient grounds existed for the House to impeach President Nixon, specified powers which the Committee could exercise in conducting this investigation, and addressed funding for that purpose. The resolution was agreed to by the House."

Resolutions? What is a Resolution? It is something that is either tabled, or voted on by the whole House.

Now, you know, 'the rest of the story'. (RIP Paul)

Care to try again?

Ok, at least you tried, so I'll respond...

originally posted by: ganjoa
I disagree with your claim, specifically items #1

Let's take these one at a time...

You are seriously claiming that the term "HoR" - plural - does not mean the whole House?

Ok, I'm listening. Nothing that followed that little 'liar liar' response was supportive, so, by all means, make your case that the HoR doesn't mean the whole HoR.

and #2 regarding your interpretation that any inquiry and any impeachment requires participation of the entire HoR.

Look, it appears that you are trying, but I'm sorry, you are failing miserably.

Statement 2 says:

"2. Initiation of an Impeachment Inquiry/Investigation falls within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment' as used in the Constitution, and for this reason, requires participation of the whole HofR."

Your response addresses only the conclusion, not the actual argument the conclusion is based on.

Please try again. Make your case that "an Impeachment Inquiry/Investigation falls within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment' as used in the Constitution" is factually wrong.

Clearly the Article in question makes no mention of activities precedent to impeachment, only that the full responsibility for impeachment resides with the HoR. Only the impeachment per se is mandated to require a vote of the full HoR.

Clearly? Clearly, the term "Power of Impeachment" describes a Power. Not one specific action, but a specific Power. I have submitted that 'The Power of Impeachment' includes any and all actions and processes related to the act of Impeachment. I further submit that it can be read in no other way - without engaging in extreme sophistry.

Now, again, are you seriously suggesting that an impeachment inquiry/investigation does not fall within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment'? If so, let's hear your logical, rational argument.

How the HoR gets to the-point-of-impeachment is obfuscated, left to inherent powers of Congress as described in Article I Section 5 Paragraphs 2 &3 where Congress is free to make its' own rules within the confines of the Constitution as interpreted by Congress, obviously.

Obvious to sophists, maybe. Not to people who understand sentence construction and how to read, that certain words mean certain things, and that not everything under the sun is open to interpretation.

It's interesting that the founders foresaw a time might come when the houses of Congress were divided, and wisely chose to permit these differences and trust in future generations to resolve future issues. Now if you'd like to jump to the Amendments, we can discuss a number of egregious violations through congressional action in the HoR.

I'd be happy to, if you could actually prove you know how to engage in debate, and make one or more valid responses to my claims - you know, since I've totally demolished the ones in this post..

originally posted by: Gryphon66
A Member can initiate impeachment procedings in three different ways:

1. By declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initative.
2. By presenting memorial charges under oath.
3. By depositing an item into the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee.

Impeachment can be initated from external sources as well:

1. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommends the consideration of impeachment of a Federal judge.
2. An independent counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment
3. By message from the President.
4. By a charge from a state or territorial legislature or grand jury.
5. By petition.

Impeachment and Removal, pg. 17

Yes yes, but please, keep reading:

The very next page 18 :

"Resolutions regarding impeachment may be of two types. A resolution impeaching a particular individual, who is within the category of impeachable officers under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, is usually referred directly to the House Committee on the Judiciary.154 A resolution to authorize an investigation as to whether grounds exist for the House to exercise its impeachment power is referred to the House Committee on Rules.155 Generally, such a resolution is then referred to the House Judiciary Committee.156 During the House impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon, a resolution reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, H.Res. 803,157 was called up for immediate consideration as a privileged matter. The resolution authorized the House Judiciary Committee to investigate fully whether sufficient grounds existed for the House to impeach President Nixon, specified powers which the Committee could exercise in conducting this investigation, and addressed funding for that purpose. The resolution was agreed to by the House."

Resolutions? What is a Resolution? It is something that is either tabled, or voted on by the whole House.

Now, you know, 'the rest of the story'. (RIP Paul) all of which

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The House has the power to Impeach

Exactly. Adam Schiff is not "The House". Nancy Pelosi is not "The House". The Intelligence Committee is not "The House".

Not IMO, in fact.

Next?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your argument repeatedly fails because you make assertions with no evidence,

My assertion is based on the evidence I present - the words/terms in the Constitution, and the meanings of those words/terms as they are used in said document.

you misrepresent the evidence you do present,

I thought I didn't present any? lol

I haven't mis-represented anything. I have made a claim based on logical argument as to what these words/terms mean as used in said document.

As of now, no one has even tried to engage in a logical argument against mine. Just some sophistry and 'liar liar' nonsense.

and then, when that is pointed out to you, you claim your own words as the only relevant authority.

I have made a claim - an argument - based on one, simple clause in the Constitution.

No one has successfully challenged the logic of my claim. Again, all I've gotten is sophistry and 'liar liar' nonsense like this response of yours.

This is the logical fallacy of argument from assertion, i.e. "It's true because I say it's true."

That is not what I'm doing, it is what you are doing, and this is the primary tool now of the dems - accuse their opponent of what they themselves are guilty of. Nice try, but no dice.

It is also the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum because you keep making that claims that "anybody can see this is true."

Some things are self evident, as in this case. I'm sorry if you're not able to see it, but thats your problem, not mine.

It is also the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem because you continually refute the assertions of others based on mere insults.

No, I point out that, so far, the assertions of others I've gotten are mere 'liar liar' responses not worthy of debate.

I would love to play the game with you but you don't seem to understand the rules, or if you do, you refuse to play by them. What a waste.

Again, accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of. Tsk tsk.

Regarding House RESOLUTIONS ... from Impeachment and Removal, pg. 18 as noted above.

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining any vote. Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. However, it is possible that this investigation could be carried out by a select or special committee.