RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: A Partisan Impeachment Vote Is Exactly What The Framers Feared - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

A Partisan Impeachment Vote Is Exactly What The Framers Feared Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 51,690
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 02 November 2019 - 12:53 AM

A Partisan Impeachment Vote Is Exactly What The Framers Feared

The Hill
By Alan Dershowitz, opinion contributor
11/01/19 10:00 AM EDT

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Excerpt:

The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

It is almost as if this founding father were looking down at the House vote from heaven and describing what transpired this week. Impeachment is an extraordinary tool to be used only when the constitutional criteria are met. These criteria are limited and include only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Hamilton described these as being “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

His use of the term “political” has been widely misunderstood in history. It does not mean that the process of impeachment and removal should be political in the partisan sense. Hamilton distinctly distinguished between the nature of the constitutional crimes, denoting them as political, while insisting that the process for impeachment and removal must remain scrupulously neutral and nonpartisan among members of Congress.

Thus, no impeachment should ever move forward without bipartisan support. That is a tall order in our age of hyperpartisan politics in which party loyalty leaves little room for neutrality. Proponents of the House vote argue it is only about procedures and not about innocence or guilt, and that further investigation may well persuade some Republicans to place principle over party and to vote for impeachment, or some Democrats to vote against impeachment. While that is entirely possible, the House vote would seem to make such nonpartisan neutrality extremely unlikely.

It is far more likely that, no matter how extensive the investigation is and regardless of what it uncovers, nearly all House Democrats will vote for impeachment and nearly all House Republicans will vote against it. Such a partisan vote would deny constitutional legitimacy to impeachment. It was because of this fear of partisanship in the House that the framers left the ultimate decision to remove an official to the Senate. The framers intended the Senate, which was not popularly elected at the time the Constitution was written, to be less partisan and act more like judges.

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   Currahee! 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 2,241
  • Joined: 21-April 04

Posted 02 November 2019 - 07:45 AM

the Dersch nailed it......and if you read the full article don’t miss the TDS comments section.....from supposed intelligent/educated people........Gawd they frighten me.....

I don’t know....is The Hill a liberal rag?
0

#3 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,009
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 02 November 2019 - 11:00 AM

Most national legislatures employ the parliamentary system. The chief executive is the prime minister, the leader of the majority party in the chamber of deputies. If he fails to win a vote of confidence by the majority in the chamber, he is out of a job and new elections must be held soon. In this context, to form a "government" means to get a majority in the House of Commons or the Assembly so that majority can elect the new prime minister and conduct business. This was the example the authors of the U.S. Constitution had in front of them when they wrote it.

They chose not to follow that example. They made the chief executive separately elected with a fixed four-year term. Therefore, they must have seen disadvantages in the Parliamentary system, especially in the House of Commons's power to dismiss a Prime Minister through a vote of no confidence. They gave Congress the power to impeach a President but only for high crimes and misdemeanors, such as treason or bribery.

In the wake of our disastrous Civil War, culminating in the assassination of President Lincoln, the Republican Party had a virtual monopoly on Congress. They realized that if President Andrew Johnson were removed from office by impeachment, the Speaker of the House would become President. They yielded to the temptation by enacting the Tenure of Office Act over President Johnson's veto. When he ignored that Act on the ground that it was unconstitutional, they impeached him. The episode is one of those recounted by Senator John F. Kennedy (ghostwritten by Arthur Schlesinger) in "Profiles in Courage." Seven Senators voted to acquit Johnson rather than break with the founders' plan for three countervailing branches of government even though their votes meant losing their Senate seats. One of them explained his vote this way:


Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.
0

#4 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,152
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 02 November 2019 - 02:13 PM

Good commentary Martin.
0

#5 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 31,986
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 02 November 2019 - 03:00 PM

I wonder if the founders had ever feared of impeachment being abused for partisan political purposes? <_<
0

#6 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,009
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 08:05 AM

View PostRock N, on 02 November 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

I wonder if the founders had ever feared of impeachment being abused for partisan political purposes?


The record is unclear. If they feared impeachment would be abused for political purposes, why would they have made the Vice-President the runner-up in the Presidential election? A sufficiently strong opposition party could lose the Presidential election yet still put their man into the office by removing the winner through impeachment.
0

#7 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,815
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 04:03 PM

Which is EXACTLY why the American People need to hold ALL politicians responsible for their actions, ESPECIALLY if they are betraying the voters and violating the Constitution.

Accountability is a must, second only to the Republicans and moderate Dems to grow bigger balls and get to work serving the American People.

Unfortunately, the American People are going to get it up the poop chute because politicians are self serving creatures by nature and they won't do anything to jeopardize their cushy opportunities to get richer and wield more power in office, as well as pull strings and use influence once they're out of office...

Because let's be honest, no politician is ever, truly, out of office...
0

#8 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,498
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 04:51 PM

View PostCurrahee!, on 02 November 2019 - 07:45 AM, said:

the Dersch nailed it......and if you read the full article don’t miss the TDS comments section.....from supposed intelligent/educated people........Gawd they frighten me.....

I don’t know....is The Hill a liberal rag?


The Hill is definitely a liberal (sorry Monty) rag.

I've had comments of mine removed/deleted simply for being politically incorrect. In other words they "offended" the majority. There were no threats, insults, or bad language in my comments. They also engage in "shadow banning", which means your comment appears to be online, but in reality only you can see it. Shadow banning is a tactic used to avoid your censorship complaints because you don't know you've been censored. It's the progressive/socialist/communist/dictatorship path to utopia.
0

#9 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,152
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 03 November 2019 - 05:57 PM

View PostNatural Selection, on 03 November 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

The Hill is definitely a liberal (sorry Monty) rag.

I've had comments of mine removed/deleted simply for being politically incorrect. In other words they "offended" the majority. There were no threats, insults, or bad language in my comments. They also engage in "shadow banning", which means your comment appears to be online, but in reality only you can see it. Shadow banning is a tactic used to avoid your censorship complaints because you don't know you've been censored. It's the progressive/socialist/communist/dictatorship path to utopia.

I didn’t even know about that tactic.
0

#10 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,498
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:09 PM

View Postzurg, on 03 November 2019 - 05:57 PM, said:

I didn’t even know about that tactic.


Trump tweeted about the practice over a year ago. Not much has been done about it.

http://i.postimg.cc/SxbpDV6k/trump-shadow-banning.png

(link to tweet)

As far as I know, RightNation does not engage in shadow banning.
0

#11 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,152
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:18 PM

View PostNatural Selection, on 03 November 2019 - 06:09 PM, said:

Trump tweeted about the practice over a year ago. Not much has been done about it.

http://i.postimg.cc/SxbpDV6k/trump-shadow-banning.png

(link to tweet)

As far as I know, RightNation does not engage in shadow banning.

If you’re reading this, you know that the overlords allowed at least one response to be seen.... :whistling:
0

#12 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,498
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:20 PM

View Postzurg, on 03 November 2019 - 06:18 PM, said:

If you’re reading this, you know that the overlords allowed at least one response to be seen.... :whistling:


Seen and relieved...
0

#13 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 31,986
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:25 PM

View PostNatural Selection, on 03 November 2019 - 06:09 PM, said:

Trump tweeted about the practice over a year ago. Not much has been done about it.

http://i.postimg.cc/SxbpDV6k/trump-shadow-banning.png

(link to tweet)

As far as I know, RightNation does not engage in shadow banning.

Trump first heard about it from Infowars who broke the story about the practice.
0

#14 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,498
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 06:36 PM

View PostRock N, on 03 November 2019 - 06:25 PM, said:

Trump first heard about it from Infowars who broke the story about the practice.


It must not be illegal...yet.

I'm guessing users agree to it in the "terms of service" that we never read.
0

#15 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,498
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 07:45 PM

View PostRock N, on 03 November 2019 - 06:25 PM, said:

Trump first heard about it from Infowars who broke the story about the practice.


I believe The Hill also uses Artificial Intelligence to reply to comments. I've posted comments there and seen responses appear before anyone could have possibly read my comment.
0

#16 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,815
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 03 November 2019 - 11:02 PM

View PostNatural Selection, on 03 November 2019 - 07:45 PM, said:

I believe The Hill also uses Artificial Intelligence to reply to comments. I've posted comments there and seen responses appear before anyone could have possibly read my comment.


For a minute there I thought you were going to say artificial insemination...

But we all know it's artificial dissemination... :rolleyes:
0

#17 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 18,498
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 04 November 2019 - 08:06 AM

View PostTicked@TinselTown, on 03 November 2019 - 11:02 PM, said:

But we all know it's artificial dissemination... :rolleyes:


The scientific term for fake news. :lol:
0

#18 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,815
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 04 November 2019 - 02:34 PM

View PostNatural Selection, on 04 November 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:

The scientific term for fake news. :lol:


Seems appropriate, wouldn't you say?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users