• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we still a Constitutional Democracy? Are we to allow Trump to destroy it?

Luckyone said:
In the last 2 weeks, Trump has additionally attacked our Constitution and our laws by:

1)

2)

If Trump is not forced to follow the Constitution and the laws of our nation he will set a precedent for the future that will allow anyone to do the same and get away with it.

Are we still a Constitutional Democracy? Will we allow Trump to break the Constitution and our laws and turn us into an autocratic ruled nation or a dictatorship? Will the Republicans defend the Constitution that they so often quote, or kowtow to Trump's desires? Is Trump above the law?
Click to expand...

Actually, Lucky, we never were a constitutional democracy, we are now, and always have been a constitutional republic. The only constitutional issue, not crisis, is the question of whether a 90 year old law allowing congress to demand tax documents without Fourth Amendment guarantees is constitutional. Not a crisis, a standard process for disputed laws. The Constitution places limits on the powers of all three branches.
 
Luckyone said:
Donald Trump regularly disparages or repudiates . . . the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of election results
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To be a leftist literally requires you to have your sense of irony removed, it seems.
 
Luckyone said:
I would be willing to discuss the Obama issues at another time. Nonetheless, at this time Obama is no longer a factor as he is not able to make any decisions for or against the country and none of his believers are in the administration either.

At this time, this nation is going through a Constitutional crisis that is being caused by Trump and that is what needs to be addressed at this time.

It does seem to me that since you cannot (or don't want) to address the problem, you deflect to another topic where you feel you have a valid gripe and have proof of. Nonetheless, that is called "running away from the problem that is facing our nation" and that makes you simply a critic but certainly not a patriot (other than to your idol - Trump). If you truly cared about your nation, you would address the issue and attempt to find a solution. Deflection is a defensive maneuver and points to the person being more of a coward than a patriot and solution-seeker. It really talks badly about you.
Click to expand...

Must have touched a nerve. Oh well.

Hey, from my first post, I was addressing he hypocrisy aspect of this, so your rant at me isn't really applicable. If you didn't want to discuss this aspect, you didn't have to reply now, did you?

"your idol - Trump"
An inaccurate assumption on your part. Trump is no idol to me. From very early on I've posted that there's 'Good Trump' and 'Bad Trump', where good Trump advances the conservative agenda, while bad Trump fails to advance, or hinders the advancement of the conservative agenda, further, I've criticized Trump and his pointless Twitter slap fights, which hinders the advancement of the conservative agenda, and would wish that he could turn a phrase such as Regan was able to.

Now, on to your point.

I don't see your premise as being as much of a problem as you appear to be seeing it. I'm not seeing it as a 'Constitutional crisis', a phrase often parroted by the left when someone resists their unreasonable demands, and, yes, I see 81 subpoenas from the House as being unreasonable, and I further see demanding Trump, or his IRS, release his tax returns as being unreasonable, especially when the sole motivation isn't appropriate government oversight, it's sole motivation is Democratic oppo research miss-using the congressional oversight as an excuse to get it. Another fine example of Democrats politicization of, and miss-using of, the levers of government power for political gain, such as the previous administration's already well established record of the same.

The House Democrats need to get off the lame excuse of 'appropriate oversight', it's not, and simply be honest, 'political oppo research' and 'using government to advance their political agenda', both of which are 100% accurate and true.
 
eohrnberger said:
Must have touched a nerve. Oh well.

Hey, from my first post, I was addressing he hypocrisy aspect of this, so your rant at me isn't really applicable. If you didn't want to discuss this aspect, you didn't have to reply now, did you?

"your idol - Trump"
An inaccurate assumption on your part. Trump is no idol to me. From very early on I've posted that there's 'Good Trump' and 'Bad Trump', where good Trump advances the conservative agenda, while bad Trump fails to advance, or hinders the advancement of the conservative agenda, further, I've criticized Trump and his pointless Twitter slap fights, which hinders the advancement of the conservative agenda, and would wish that he could turn a phrase such as Regan was able to.

Now, on to your point.

I don't see your premise as being as much of a problem as you appear to be seeing it. I'm not seeing it as a 'Constitutional crisis', a phrase often parroted by the left when someone resists their unreasonable demands, and, yes, I see 81 subpoenas from the House as being unreasonable, and I further see demanding Trump, or his IRS, release his tax returns as being unreasonable, especially when the sole motivation isn't appropriate government oversight, it's sole motivation is Democratic oppo research miss-using the congressional oversight as an excuse to get it. Another fine example of Democrats politicization of, and miss-using of, the levers of government power for political gain, such as the previous administration's already well established record of the same.

The House Democrats need to get off the lame excuse of 'appropriate oversight', it's not, and simply be honest, 'political oppo research' and 'using government to advance their political agenda', both of which are 100% accurate and true.
Click to expand...


The “conservative agenda”... you are willing to tolerate trump as long as the conservative agenda is fulfilled.

That is what I consider to be the ultimate display of conservatives abandoning their constitutional principles in pursuit of power.

This confirms my belief that the last principled republican was Senator Robert M Lafollette sr. He argued and voted against America’s entry into world war 1 and that vote made him a political paraiah at the time.

The conservatives have abandoned their constitutional principles in pursuit of their agenda and are unwilling to stand up to trump’s abuse of power if it meant sacrificing their conservative agenda.
 
CharisRose said:
The United States of America is a Democracy - Fact or Myth?

snippets from a very long and very informative article.

Is the United States of America a Democracy or a Republic?

The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Representative Democracy). Despite a strong democratic tradition, the U.S. is not a “Direct Democracy“ (where people vote on laws directly*)

FACT: When Plato and Aristotle first gave names to the forms, they specifically used Democracy and Aristocracy to denote who rules. Since all future political philosophers have used their naming, the distinction is important. When we don’t stress the idea that the U.S. is a Republic (here meaning a sovereign law-abiding mixed-constitution “rooted in an aristocracy”), it makes aspects of the Constitution like the Electoral College very confusing. Yet, when we stress the term Republic too much, it makes it seem like the Republican party is inherently more American or that they hold only Republican principles, but all of those ideas are pretty far from the truth. If you want to know more about that, see the U.S. party names explained.

Conclusion

The United States of America is a Constitutional Federal Republic, not a Direct Democracy (which is the traditional meaning of the term Democracy).

The simplest way to describe America, is a “mixed constitution” or “mixed government rooted in a Republic”. For more detail you can say, “America is a mixed-market Federal Republic with strong Democratic principles, and Freedom of religion, where all people are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free speech, a free press, and the right to defend those ideals against invaders foreign and domestic”. In other words, America is not meant to be overtaken by mob rule or oligarchs.

The 1st amendment gives us the technology to protect the Republic from mob rule and oligarchs, the 2nd amendment is only a last resort reserved for foreign threats, when the scales become unbalanced we will find our solution in the wisdom of our forefathers (not in corporate funded soundbites). If you think you’ve found the answer in the extreme of a political party, think again. There is a war of information going on, always has been, always will be, but look close at the history of western democracy and you’ll find the right role models in great men like Plato, Aristotle, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and more.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Long post but what does it mean. Does it mean that our Constitution should not be followed and that our laws not adhered to?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If conservatives really cared about principles, they would have remembered one very important one: upholding the rule of law.


If conservatives really cared about upholding the rule of law, none of trump’s actions would be tolerated and he would have been subjected to impeachment. If conservatives truely care about constitutional principles, then why did they elect a man who openly acts in contempt of constitutional principles?
Click to expand...

Where was your outrage at Obama or any other Democrat? Ummm . . . .

Yeah, well no.

If the Democrats want to drag the political competition into lawlessness (as they already have), it would be foolish for any other political party to hamstring itself, as the outcome of the political competition will affect the future of the nation.

The Democrats called everyone out to this street fight, now you're sorry you did? That others are using your same tactics? :lamo
Yeah, well no.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The “conservative agenda”... you are willing to tolerate trump as long as the conservative agenda is fulfilled.

That is what I consider to be the ultimate display of conservatives abandoning their constitutional principles in pursuit of power.

This confirms my belief that the last principled republican was Senator Robert M Lafollette sr. He argued and voted against America’s entry into world war 1 and that vote made him a political paraiah at the time.

The conservatives have abandoned their constitutional principles in pursuit of their agenda and are unwilling to stand up to trump’s abuse of power if it meant sacrificing their conservative agenda.
Click to expand...

You and yours are in no position to talk.
 
Luckyone said:
I was not on this board at the time so I could not have done it either way.

Nonetheless, I have no idols like most Trump supporters do. I respect people that try to do the right thing all the time and in my opinion Obama tried to do the right thing most of the time. I have no respect for Trump for the exact opposite reason, he never tries to do the right thing for others, only the right thing for himself.

Then again, no human is perfect and that means that mistakes will be made and wrong judgment on actions as well. The key is "intent" and moral compass. If a person intends to respect the Constitution and the laws of the United States but on some occasion, either by mistake or by intent, happens to break one that can be forgivable as the guideline should be his previous track record (much like what happens in a court of law). On the other side if there is a pattern of intent to break the law and/or the Constitution occurs (as is the case with Trump and the OP proves it), then you are dealing with a criminal and not some form of incompetency and the criminal should be prosecuted to the height of the law and the punishment that goes along with it.

You failed to make your invalid point but it does show your inability to be fair or to understand what intent and criminality is.
Click to expand...

Did you at any point criticize Obama for his phone and pen attack on our constitution? It's a yes or no.
 
eohrnberger said:
Must have touched a nerve. Oh well.


Now, on to your point.

I don't see your premise as being as much of a problem as you appear to be seeing it. I'm not seeing it as a 'Constitutional crisis', a phrase often parroted by the left when someone resists their unreasonable demands, and, yes, I see 81 subpoenas from the House as being unreasonable, and I further see demanding Trump, or his IRS, release his tax returns as being unreasonable, especially when the sole motivation isn't appropriate government oversight, it's sole motivation is Democratic oppo research miss-using the congressional oversight as an excuse to get it. Another fine example of Democrats politicization of, and miss-using of, the levers of government power for political gain, such as the previous administration's already well established record of the same.

The House Democrats need to get off the lame excuse of 'appropriate oversight', it's not, and simply be honest, 'political oppo research' and 'using government to advance their political agenda', both of which are 100% accurate and true.
Click to expand...

You did touch a nerve because when discussing a serious issue and one person is discussing something else that is past history, it means I am wasting my time and my time is important to me.

This post of your is just one more way of deflecting the issue and not addressing the problem.

You mention the word "unreasonable" 3 times but neither the Constitution nor the law gives any credence to the word, given that it is opinion and not fact. The reality is the 81 subpoenas might be unreasonable to you but they are legal as far as the Constitution and the law is concerned. Would it make much of a difference whether they were less (40, or 30, or 10, or less) and would they be any more unreasonable if they were more (90, 100, 200). The number is inconsequential, the fact is that they are legal and Congress has a right to impose them is all that matters.

You mention the word "oversight" twice but House oversight is what the Constitution calls for. The House came about because our forefathers wanted checks and balances and the House was given the job of overseeing that the President does what is legal and does not break the law. As such, it is their job to do oversight to the President. What you or Trump feel is right or wrong, unreasonable or overdone or not, the reality is that is what the Constitution and the Law requires and the President and you trying to "fluff it away" means that you do not support the Constitution or the Laws of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Luckyone said:
You did touch a nerve because when discussing a serious issue and one person is discussing something else that is past history, it means I am wasting my time and my time is important to me.

This post of your is just one more way of deflecting the issue and not addressing the problem.

You mention the word "unreasonable" 3 times but neither the Constitution nor the law gives any credence to the word, given that it is opinion and not fact. The reality is the 81 subpoenas might be unreasonable to you but they are legal as far as the Constitution and the law is concerned. Would it make much of a difference whether they were less (40, or 30, or 10, or less) and would they be any more unreasonable if they were more (90, 100, 200). The number is inconsequential, the fact is that they are legal and Congress has a right to impose them is all that matters.

You mention the word "oversight" twice but House oversight is what the Constitution calls for. The House came about as the what our forefathers wanted in order to have checks and balances and it was put together to judge whether the Executive side was doing what was legal or not. As such, it is their job to do oversight to the President. What you or Trump feel is right or wrong, unreasonable or overdone or not, the reality is that is what the Constitution and the Law requires and the President and you trying to "fluff it away" means that you do not support the Constitution or the Laws of the United States.
Click to expand...

It is not reasonable to use what should be 'appropriate oversight' for political advantage and as political weapons. Full stop.

Since you can't come to terms, or simply chose to ignore, that the Democrats in the House, Democrats yet again, are politicizing and abusing government power as political weapons; that you think this wholly appropriate; I'm perceiving that you are 'so concerned' not for the constitutional aspects, but purely for partisan reasons. The partisan 'firing of the subpoena cannon' has long been predicted, and has now come to pass.

This would be an prime example of party over country, that many from the left keep yammering about, baselessly blame casting accusations onto others. But it is yet another example of 'that which they accuse others of doing is what they themselves are doing far more often and far more severely'.

This precedent is one that shouldn't be set, but appears to be one that will be set. So next time there's a Democrat in the White House, and the Republicans hold the House, we can expect the same once again? Just purely for political reasons? What a dark and awful future you seem to insist on for the future of the country. Seems you have no concern about that in the least. Might I suggest that you start thinking in those terms?

We have 2 branches of government which have opposing views on this which has resulted in a conflict. It'll be up to the 3rd branch of government to decide the matter, as 3 co-equal branches of government is designed to do. I'm OK with that, come what may.

Should Trump's tax returns be made public, are you ready to have this also be as much a nothingburger as the results of the Mueller investigation?
Talk about egg on face at that point, once again.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Did you at any point criticize Obama for his phone and pen attack on our constitution? It's a yes or no.
Click to expand...

First of all, I was not involved with politics at the time so I did neither. If you remember, I have stated on 3 occasions that I had not voted my entire lifetime until Trump showed up. All the past presidents and nominees had at least one of the four things (ethics, morals, principles or humanity) that I needed to see to feel that they would not do untold and irreversible damage to our nation. Up until Trump, I saw one of those 4 existing in the nominees and as such, I did not bother to check out what they did or did not do while Presidents. I felt that ultimately, things would be fine for our country even if one president or another did something bad that would derail us for a time, such as Nixon or Bush Jr.

It was not until Trump showed up that I suddenly took an interest in Politics given that I see Trump as 100% evil, with none of the 4 qualities I believe are important, and someone that can to untold and irreversible damage to our country.. Since then, I have addressed the issue with the same detail that I address my job as chart analyst for the stock market.

Sorry to disappoint you from making your point. If I had interest in your question, I would study the situations you mention with Obama and determine how I would have reacted to it. Nonetheless, since finding out what I would have done does not change anything or help solve the problems and I also do not see you as a person of respect to whom I would dedicate my time to, you will not receive an answer from me either way.
 
Luckyone said:
In the last 2 weeks, Trump has additionally attacked our Constitution and our laws by:

1)

2)

If Trump is not forced to follow the Constitution and the laws of our nation he will set a precedent for the future that will allow anyone to do the same and get away with it.

Are we still a Constitutional Democracy? Will we allow Trump to break the Constitution and our laws and turn us into an autocratic ruled nation or a dictatorship? Will the Republicans defend the Constitution that they so often quote, or kowtow to Trump's desires? Is Trump above the law?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, Congress has to have a legitimate reason for issuing subpoenas they expect to be complied with. That's true for all of their oversight responsibilities.
"Looking for anything damaging" isn't a legitimate reason.
 
bubbabgone said:
Generally speaking, Congress has to have a legitimate reason for issuing subpoenas they expect to be complied with. That's true for all of their oversight responsibilities.
"Looking for anything damaging" isn't a legitimate reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well what you define as legitimate reason is an opinion. As such, I will ignore it. It is their job and whether there is a legitimate reason or not, we are not the ones that decide that. If they overstep their boundaries, the other side can take it to court and have it decided by the law and not by opinion.
 
Luckyone said:
Yeah, well what you define as legitimate reason is an opinion. As such, I will ignore it. It is their job and whether there is a legitimate reason or not, we are not the ones that decide that. If they overstep their boundaries, the other side can take it to court and have it decided by the law and not by opinion.
Click to expand...

Who decides it?
 
Luckyone said:
Long post but what does it mean. Does it mean that our Constitution should not be followed and that our laws not adhered to?
Click to expand...

It means, I have provided you with information and you can take it or leave it to educate yourself about Our American Constitutional form of Government which is not factually a Constitutional Democracy.

Our Constitution and Our Laws are very important and yes they should be adhered to by all of Our Elected Representatives, Governmental Officials, all establishments ( business organization, public institution, or household) and all peoples residing in or wanting to reside in The U.S.

Instead of using talking points could you... Please, be more specific and provide the exact laws Trump has violated.

Additional info from article

TIP: The U.S. Constitution sets up a Republican form of government for the U.S. and it also guarantees every state a Republican form of government.

(which is very Democratic, as it puts power into more hands by ensuring the power of state governments).

Thus, not only is the U.S. a Republic, each state is also a Republic.

When we say “Republican” we mean an ideology that is pro-Republic (rather than pro-Monarchy for example; We aren’t talking about the Republican party).

When we say Democratic, we mean favoring the people (we aren’t talking about the Democratic Party).

All of America’s founders were both Democrats and Republicans (as are almost all Americans today)…

This is why the party of Jefferson was the Democratic-Republicans.

The current party names are both named after American values and the ruling style of the parties of the 1800’s...

They have little do to with the ideologies of parties of today. See the history of the parties.

YouTube

Roseann:)
 
VanceMack said:
Did the Constitution collapse when Obama claimed executive privilege to prevent people in his administration from testifying or to prevent the release of emails. Hell...we even managed to survive his Justice Departments granting of immunity to key witnesses while they destroyed subpoenaed evidence. And I bet you didnt say a ****ing word. EHll...Id bet you were one of the people cheering on their actions.
Click to expand...

AND Vance Mack gets in with Obama Whataboutism in post number four! Great effort, VM. Except the post is not about Obama.

By your response, I'm wondering if your idea of governing in a democracy is that as long as someone else did first it is perfectly fine for the successor to do the same thing? You then support lowering the bar by justifying present behavior by blaming it on previous predessesors. The He did it first grade school philosophy of governing. Bar lowering democracy. :roll:
 
Risky Thicket said:
AND Vance Mack gets in with Obama Whataboutism in post number four! Great effort, VM. Except the post is not about Obama.

By your response, I'm wondering if your idea of governing in a democracy is that as long as someone else did first it is perfectly fine for the successor to do the same thing? You then support lowering the bar by justifying present behavior by blaming it on previous predessesors. The He did it first grade school philosophy of governing. Bar lowering democracy. :roll:
Click to expand...

What is it "whataboutism" to cite similar circumstances and actions? Oh, that's right! Playing the "whataboutism" card is the last desperate measure from having to face that fact you've been slammed by facts.
 
bubbabgone said:
Who decides it?
Click to expand...

The courts, I imagine. The courts are the ultimate deciders on whether what is being done is legal or not. Otherwise, the Republicans have to put up with what the Democrats are doing, the same as the Democrats have had to put up with what Trump has been doing the past 2 years. You and I may disagree on what is right or not but that will not change the fact that we are supposed to be a country that follows the Constitution and the existing laws and until they get broken, and it is proven in a court of law that they have been broken, we will not be able to decide one way or the other what is right and what is not.

Is this not the exact same thing that Trump is using to supposedly prove his exoneration? He is using the Mueller report as a tool to say he was exonerated but now is trying to dismantle the same laws that proved his exoneration for his benefit. He cannot have it both ways. Either he follows the laws and the Constitution or he doesn't.
 
CharisRose said:
It means, I have provided you with information and you can take it or leave it to educate yourself about Our American Constitutional form of Government which is not factually a Constitutional Democracy.

Our Constitution and Our Laws are very important and yes they should be adhered to by all of Our Elected Representatives, Governmental Officials, all establishments ( business organization, public institution, or household) and all peoples residing in or wanting to reside in The U.S.

Instead of using talking points could you... Please, be more specific and provide the exact laws Trump has violated.

Additional info from article

TIP: The U.S. Constitution sets up a Republican form of government for the U.S. and it also guarantees every state a Republican form of government.

(which is very Democratic, as it puts power into more hands by ensuring the power of state governments).

Thus, not only is the U.S. a Republic, each state is also a Republic.

When we say “Republican” we mean an ideology that is pro-Republic (rather than pro-Monarchy for example; We aren’t talking about the Republican party).

When we say Democratic, we mean favoring the people (we aren’t talking about the Democratic Party).

All of America’s founders were both Democrats and Republicans (as are almost all Americans today)…

This is why the party of Jefferson was the Democratic-Republicans.

The current party names are both named after American values and the ruling style of the parties of the 1800’s...

They have little do to with the ideologies of parties of today. See the history of the parties.

YouTube

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

I have at no time in this OP mentioned that Trump has broken any laws. My entire post has been about the Constitution and the law that gives Congress the power of subpoena and the House the right to oversight. The Constitution and the law provides them the right to do both and Trump is trying to prevent the existing laws and Constitutional right for these to be used. In simple words, by preventing their constitutional and legal rights to do what they are allowed to do, he is breaking the law and preventing their Constitutional right to do so.

That is why I had and have a problem with the long post and the exact definition of the kind of government that we have. It does not matter what kind of government we have, what matters is the laws and Constitutional rights that are given and that allow the House to do oversight and Congress to subpoena and ask for the President's tax returns.
 
Risky Thicket said:
AND Vance Mack gets in with Obama Whataboutism in post number four! Great effort, VM. Except the post is not about Obama.

By your response, I'm wondering if your idea of governing in a democracy is that as long as someone else did first it is perfectly fine for the successor to do the same thing? You then support lowering the bar by justifying present behavior by blaming it on previous predessesors. The He did it first grade school philosophy of governing. Bar lowering democracy. :roll:
Click to expand...

He resorts to whataboutism all the time. What else can one do when Trump is their boy?
 
Bullseye said:
What is it "whataboutism" to cite similar circumstances and actions? Oh, that's right! Playing the "whataboutism" card is the last desperate measure from having to face that fact you've been slammed by facts.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism is an attempt to derail a thread by justifying the behavior of the subject in an OP by blaming the same of similar behavior on a predessor. Pretty cut and dried.
 
Luckyone said:
The courts, I imagine. The courts are the ultimate deciders on whether what is being done is legal or not. Otherwise, the Republicans have to put up with what the Democrats are doing, the same as the Democrats have had to put up with what Trump has been doing the past 2 years. You and I may disagree on what is right or not but that will not change the fact that we are supposed to be a country that follows the Constitution and the existing laws and until they get broken, and it is proven in a court of law that they have been broken, we will not be able to decide one way or the other what is right and what is not.

Is this not the exact same thing that Trump is using to supposedly prove his exoneration? He is using the Mueller report as a tool to say he was exonerated but now is trying to dismantle the same laws that proved his exoneration for his benefit. He cannot have it both ways. Either he follows the laws and the Constitution or he doesn't.
Click to expand...

Right. The Courts decide.
So if there's a question that what one of the 3 branches is doing something improper then they decide.
There's no rule that says the Executive branch has to obey a subpoena issued by the Legislative branch if it suspects that branch is acting politically and without cause.
If the Executive branch, through the DOJ, charged Adam Schiff because he attempted to conspire with what he thought was a Russian national to get damaging information on Trump, wouldn't you expect him to challenge the charge?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Whataboutism is an attempt to derail a thread by justifying the behavior of the subject in an OP by blaming the same of similar behavior on a predessor. Pretty cut and dried.
Click to expand...
ONLY when YOU DO IT. Relevant references to history similarities don't fit that definition. Nice Try.
 
Luckyone said:
In the last 2 weeks, Trump has additionally attacked our Constitution and our laws by:

1)

2)

If Trump is not forced to follow the Constitution and the laws of our nation he will set a precedent for the future that will allow anyone to do the same and get away with it.

Are we still a Constitutional Democracy? Will we allow Trump to break the Constitution and our laws and turn us into an autocratic ruled nation or a dictatorship? Will the Republicans defend the Constitution that they so often quote, or kowtow to Trump's desires? Is Trump above the law?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I truly am. But, there is no cure for TDS. It is a disease that makes you suffer horribly.
 
bubbabgone said:
Right. The Courts decide.
So if there's a question that what one of the 3 branches is doing something improper then they decide.
There's no rule that says the Executive branch has to obey a subpoena issued by the Legislative branch if it suspects that branch is acting politically and without cause.
If the Executive branch, through the DOJ, charged Adam Schiff because he attempted to conspire with what he thought was a Russian national to get damaging information on Trump, wouldn't you expect him to challenge the charge?
Click to expand...

yeah, using the proper courts and laws and if a hung jury verdict occurred, I would expect he'd be charged again and have to defend himself again and using the Constitution and the existing laws. It is our established way. Schiff would not say that since the hung jury did not establish his guilt, he could not be tried again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom