• 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!

Does the Congress have oversight of the Executive even without impeachment?

Obscurity said:
So our constitution is fascist?
Click to expand...

False.

Incorrect. "The house" does not equal Nancy.

Check it again.

Negating the freedom of speech and the 6th amendment for opposition is fascist.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Ooh ooh ooh! I've got this one, guys!

Yes.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Congress cannot. Democrats or Republicans can have any theatrics they like as long as they set the agenda.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, it absolutely does, and anybody that tells you otherwise is a liar that is ****ting on the Constitution and 230 years of historical precedent. What Trump is saying is that he is 100% independent and unchecked by Congress short of an impeachment, and I can guarantee even if he gets impeached he'll try to obstruct, deny and call for counter-impeachments, as he already has.

He will never submit to the authority of Congress (representatives of the American people) under any circumstance. Trump and his supporters hate our country and its Constitution and are doing everything in their power to completely change the scope and powers of the executive branch.
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't have unlimited authority over the Executive Branch. Anyone who says so is a liar.
 
akyron said:
Incorrect. Congress cannot. Democrats or Republicans can have any theatrics they like as long as they set the agenda.
Click to expand...

The difference between you and me is that the next time there's a Democratic President and a Republican House, you'll completely change your position whereas mine will be exactly the same.
 
Integrityrespec said:
It's called precendent and the democrats are choosing to ignore it. Let's talk about transparency but not do it, typical democrats. They have chosen this path because it limits both the republicans in congress and the President in defending their side of the issue.
Click to expand...

There are two different factors at play, as I see it. Pelosi is well within her constitutional authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry without a vote. That really is indisputable and precedent doesn’t really play into this. Unless codified in law or a House rule, Pelosi is under no obligation to do what previous Houses have done.

The second factor is public opinion. How long will the public be okay with this impeachment process being a strictly partisan affair? I think if public opinion starts turning on Pelosi she’ll either call for a vote, or drop the inquiry.
 
independentusa said:
We have the Whiite House saying that they will stonewall the House until the House votes for impeachment. My question is that we have had plenty of investigations of the Executive Branch of government without any question of impeachment in the past. Consider the many and long investigations of Clinton when she was Secretary of State. This may be the first time that though that the President has total control of the DOj, which allows Trump to stop any attempt by the Dem controlled house to use the power to hold people in contempt and jail them as the DOJ would refuse to do so. So, does the congress have the right to oversight the Executive Branch without a formal impeachment vote in the House?
Click to expand...

The Executive Branch has no legal authority to withhold evidence or witnesses.

The fact that they are doing so will set up a series of court battles.

President dictates that the Executive will lose all of these battles. This is the same path the Nixon people went down in Watergate.
 
Pound4abrown said:
That squirrel don't hunt.
Click to expand...

That’s because the answer is yes, and Trump and his henchmen know it. But they can confuse the AM talk radio crowd with this nonsense.
 
Obscurity said:
Pelosi doesn't have to hold a vote. That's the point you trumpists are ignoring. She doesn't have to do something you want her to do, and she is calling your bluff.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah, Thats isn't a reason, thats an excuse. She isn't required to do anything but the red carpet was just laid before her feet and she won't take advantage of it? BS.
 
akyron said:
False.

Incorrect. "The house" does not equal Nancy.

Check it again.

Negating the freedom of speech and the 6th amendment for opposition is fascist.
Click to expand...

The house, and the speaker of it, have every authority as laid out by the constitution.

You simply hate our nation and our constitution.
 
Condor060 said:
Yeah yeah yeah, Thats isn't a reason, thats an excuse. She isn't required to do anything but the red carpet was just laid before her feet and she won't take advantage of it? BS.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the founders. I've provided you the education materials needed to break you out of your faux paranoia and faux outrage at Trump's impeachment, it's up to you to use them.
 
Condor060 said:
Yeah yeah yeah, Thats isn't a reason, thats an excuse. She isn't required to do anything but the red carpet was just laid before her feet and she won't take advantage of it? BS.
Click to expand...

If you repeat it long and loud enough..........

There have been enough declared votes for her to call the question anytime she wants to.

The people who are feeding you this line to repeat know that full well.

They also know that the only real option they have is to run the clock out.

They can’t trust the guy they’re defending, because he can’t be relied on to stick with a plan or do what he says he’s going to do.

They know that he’s guilty about six different ways now, and he’s betraying his oath of office right out in the open now in front of everyone.

So, they have every incentive to sit back and wait and let the record pile up.
 
Cardinal said:
The difference between you and me is that the next time there's a Democratic President and a Republican House, you'll completely change your position whereas mine will be exactly the same.
Click to expand...

You may be correct in the sense that you may land on the wrong side of an issue. I hold out hope we meet somewhere in the middle someday. My respect for consistency is legendary.
 
Obscurity said:
The house, and the speaker of it, have every authority as laid out by the constitution.

You simply hate our nation and our constitution.
Click to expand...

Already explained. Nancy is 1 vote out of many.

In this case...None. It is telling when you must claim superpowers to claim an imaginary point.

"There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.

You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.

The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.
ADVERTISEMENT

What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies."
 
Last edited:
TomFitz said:
The Executive Branch has no legal authority to withhold evidence or witnesses.

The fact that they are doing so will set up a series of court battles.

President dictates that the Executive will lose all of these battles. This is the same path the Nixon people went down in Watergate.
Click to expand...

Congressional oversight is not an unlimited power. If it were, then that would make the Executive subservient to the Legislative, rather than co-equal.
 
TomFitz said:
If you repeat it long and loud enough..........

There have been enough declared votes for her to call the question anytime she wants to.

The people who are feeding you this line to repeat know that full well.

They also know that the only real option they have is to run the clock out.

They can’t trust the guy they’re defending, because he can’t be relied on to stick with a plan or do what he says he’s going to do.

They know that he’s guilty about six different ways now, and he’s betraying his oath of office right out in the open now in front of everyone.

So, they have every incentive to sit back and wait and let the record pile up.
Click to expand...

All garbage. You are just going to sit back and wait? BS. If Pelosi had the votes she would jump all over it and hold Trumps nose to the grind stone saying it was Trumps idea to get the vote and if we did he would turn over everything we wanted and now he is knowingly hiding information he said he would release.

It would all but seal Trumps Impeachment if she held the vote and Trump refused to turn over documents. The fact that Pelosi isn't taking advantage of such a HUGE gift tells the voters exactly what we thought. She has nothing just like every other claim for the last 3 years.
 
akyron said:
Already explained. Nancy is 1 vote out of many.

In this case...None. It is telling when you must claim superpowers to claim an imaginary point.

"There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.

You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.

The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.
ADVERTISEMENT

What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies."
Click to expand...

You can spew trash all you like. At the end, you're wrong. The House, led by the Speaker, decides. Not you, not Trump, Not Cocaine Mitch or Grabass Lindsey.
 
Obscurity said:
Take it up with the founders. I've provided you the education materials needed to break you out of your faux paranoia and faux outrage at Trump's impeachment, it's up to you to use them.
Click to expand...

All you have is, she can because she can? How about, she could make this a home run and stop all the he said she said by getting the vote and burning Trumps ass with it. Oh, wait, that doesn't matter? Take it up with the Founders?

That isn't what the voters are seeing and no amount of Founder crap is going to over come the fact she has the opportunity to slam dunk this and she isn't going to take it. If she had the votes she would stick in Trumps face. You know, I know it, and the voters know it and anything else is just gibberish.
 
Obscurity said:
You can spew trash
Click to expand...

Contrary to how liberal progressive democrats treat the constitution of the USA, I consider the statement of our fundamental rights you so rabidly dismiss anything but trash.

bidenclutchp.JPG
 
Obscurity said:
Pelosi doesn't have to hold a vote. That's the point you trumpists are ignoring. She doesn't have to do something you want her to do, and she is calling your bluff.
Click to expand...

I guess she can investigate Trump's middle finger then.


at least until the courts decide that is incorrect, IF they decide that.

in what I have read , precedent requires a vote to begin proceedings.
 
for our leftist friends:


The History Place - Presidential Impeachment Proceedings

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.

The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.

If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.

If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.

If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).

The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.

The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.

The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.

After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.
 
Of course, and the master of arms does not need the justice department to start locking these no shows up. They just haven’t done it yet. Probably expecting him to dig a deeper hole, and guess what? They were right.

Do not expect the GOP to convict him in the senate no matter what he does. They all believe if they had stuck together for Nixon, it would have been different.

The only way he will go is by resigning or being voted out. You can also expect him to fight any loss, he knows he’ll be heading into a courtroom with multiple federal charges pending if he loses.

In the meantime, betraying our brothers in arms may just be the beginning of the damage he is prepared to inflict on our country, on purpose, or out of sheer ignorance.

He betrayed his oath, he betrayed our allies and he betrayed the American people. On the other hand, he loves Russia, never a bad word. Let’s Turkey beat up Americans on American soil (protestors) in plain view of the world and does nothing.

No, it’s bad, and until the GOP wakes up, it will get worse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Moon said:
There are two different factors at play, as I see it. Pelosi is well within her constitutional authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry without a vote. That really is indisputable and precedent doesn’t really play into this. Unless codified in law or a House rule, Pelosi is under no obligation to do what previous Houses have done.

The second factor is public opinion. How long will the public be okay with this impeachment process being a strictly partisan affair? I think if public opinion starts turning on Pelosi she’ll either call for a vote, or drop the inquiry.
Click to expand...
I think thats a fair assessment

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
TomFitz said:
The Executive Branch has no legal authority to withhold evidence or witnesses.

The fact that they are doing so will set up a series of court battles.

President dictates that the Executive will lose all of these battles. This is the same path the Nixon people went down in Watergate.
Click to expand...
Im not a supporter of the democrat inquisition but in a twisted sort of way i kinda hope your right that the courts authorize greater oversight authority. It opens the door to many other things that should be transparent that are not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom