Impeachment as a non-partisan action

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

NWRatCon said:

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and ate certainly the subject of debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes or standard appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior. That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with your statement more(period) It was written for a reason and made challenging for a reason(period) It should always be considered an option, but if you are going to bring it, you better have proof ready to bring down the top office in the country or suffer the loss - either is fine, but that's the choice

NWRatCon said:

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

In a perfectly moral world, all you would be doing is impeaching. And where would you get your candidates? Great men usually have great flaws.

chuckiechan said:

In a perfectly moral world, all you would be doing is impeaching. And where would you get your candidates?

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. The entire point is to guide behavior. We have never lived in a perfect world, and the Constitution anticipates and is born of that condition. It does not require perfection. It does, however, imply approximating it, and insists that the interests of the nation predominate.

NWRatCon said:

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

Disciplining a child hopefully does not consist of removing them from the family home for anything short of the most serious of (violent?) crimes. The question is, and always will be, what alleged criminal act rises to the level of removing a sitting POTUS from office a few months short of their possible re-election?

chuckiechan said:

In a perfectly moral world, all you would be doing is impeaching. And where would you get your candidates? Great men usually have great flaws.

Click to expand...

In this case with Trump it is a man who is not worth a crap who has great flaws.

ttwtt78640 said:

Disciplining a child hopefully does not consist of removing them from the family home for anything short of the most serious of (violent?) crimes. The question is, and always will be, what alleged criminal act rises to the level of removing a sitting POTUS from office a few months short of their possible re-election?

Click to expand...

So short of removing Trump, how is it then that you "discipline" him to effectively chastise him and change his criminal behavior?

haymarket said:

So short of removing Trump, how is it then that you "discipline" him to effectively chastise him and change his criminal behavior?

Click to expand...

That is an excellent question. First of all, you would have to prove (using due process) that his behavior was, in fact, criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. That is where the impeachment process fails because the jury pool is the US Senate and even though Bill Clinton actually confessed to his guilt of (some of?) the felony articles of impeachment, a sufficient number among the highly partisan jury pool declined to remove him from office by finding him "not guilty".

There is no other way, other than vote him out in 2020.

When Nixon was voted out, it was bi-partisan, and the republicans had more ethics. He did a lot less than Trump has done.

NWRatCon said:

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

Impeachment in this instance = Wildly unjustified

Also = Wildly partisan

Also = Further destroying the Democrat Party

:shrug:

ttwtt78640 said:

That is an excellent question. First of all, you would have to prove (using due process) that his behavior was, in fact, criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. That is where the impeachment process fails because the jury pool is the US Senate and even though Bill Clinton actually confessed to his guilt of (some of?) the felony articles of impeachment, a sufficient number among the highly partisan jury pool declined to remove him from office by finding him "not guilty".

Click to expand...

We already have a confession from Trump. The violation of federal law is an issue which is not even being contended or disputed.

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this.

If the GOP does not vote to convict, the Constitution has been urinated on by them and there is no real impeachment threat to anyone for a long time to come.

I always considered myself non partisan. Up until 2017 the left called me a conservative and the right called me a liberal.
Fast forward today I am a lefty kook, a librul, communist, socialist....whatever.
All because I thought Trump could be a better president than he has been....oh well.
I used to hold the office of the presidency with great regard and cringe when a democrat or republican did something to disgrace it.
I thought Clinton did many cringe worthy things. I thought Bush said and did many cringe worthy things. What I never thought were they were purposefully trying to tear the country apart.
I don't believe the bar for impeachment should be criminality. And the constitution agrees with me "high crimes & misdemeanors". Lots of folks forget the misdemeanors part jaywalking & driving 50 in a 35 is a misdemeanor in many states.
Lindsay Graham said during the impeachment of Clinton the office of the presidency needed to be cleansed. He was right then, and its true now the office needs a cleansing.
I remember one of Trumps biggest talking points during the election was Clinton would not be able to govern because she would be dealing with investigations during her predidency....well maybe he should think about that and do what's best for the country.

ttwtt78640 said:

Disciplining a child hopefully does not consist of removing them from the family home for anything short of the most serious of (violent?) crimes. The question is, and always will be, what alleged criminal act rises to the level of removing a sitting POTUS from office a few months short of their possible re-election?

Click to expand...

No, the question is, since we have overwhelming evidence of crimes committed by the POTUS, who gives a good goddamn that it's a year from the next election?

You either support the rule of law or you don't. It's literally THAT simple.

haymarket said:

We already have a confession from Trump. The violation of federal law is an issue which is not even being contended or disputed.

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this.

If the GOP does not vote to convict, the Constitution has been urinated on by them and there is no real impeachment threat to anyone for a long time to come.

Click to expand...

The precedent established by allowing Bill Clinton to remain in office despite obvious and self-admitted guilt to felony criminal charges included in formal articles of impeachment has everything to do with this. That pee stain is already on the constitution and will remain forever.

Tanngrisnir said:

No, the question is, since we have overwhelming evidence of crimes committed by the POTUS, who gives a good goddamn that it's a year from the next election?

You either support the rule of law or you don't. It's literally THAT simple.

Click to expand...

Nope, Bill Clinton was not removed from office despite having confessed to felony criminal charges included in formal articles of impeachment. Impeachment is a purely political process. It's really THAT simple.

ttwtt78640 said:

Nope, Bill Clinton was not removed from office despite having confessed to felony criminal charges included in formal articles of impeachment. Impeachment is a purely political process. It's really THAT simple.

Click to expand...

That's really rather irrelevant to anything I posted. I've never stated it was anything other than political. And this would have happened a LOT sooner had that whore in the WH not illegally clung to his 'absolute immunity' bull**** that the courts are now rightly striking down.

How close the election is is meaningless to the depth of his criminality.

It's THAT obvious.

NWRatCon said:

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

Pretty useless reading on after the bolded.


If you can twist that simple fact, the rest will likely be a contortion of half truths and gibberish. At least have the courage to admit who you are and then we can have a discussion.

Tanngrisnir said:

That's really rather irrelevant to anything I posted. I've never stated it was anything other than political. And this would have happened a LOT sooner had that whore in the WH not illegally clung to his 'absolute immunity' bull**** that the courts are now rightly striking down.

How close the election is is meaningless to the depth of his criminality.

It's THAT obvious.

Click to expand...

Actually, you did by bringing up the rule of law.

NWRatCon said:

I'm not going to cite much on the topic, as no one will read them anyway. My point, though, is to highlight a significant population that is overlooked in the partisan wrangling over the topic. While it is true that attitudes about impeachment are relatively fixed among party stalwarts, there is a swath of voters/observers who view this process as a necessary, if unpleasant, thing - like disciplining your child.

The Constitution provides the mechanism and standards for impeachment. The framers provided context for it - why it exists, and when it should be invoked. Those standards were debated then, and are certainly the subject of intense debate now. Although only four presidents have faced actual impeachment efforts (it is mentioned rhetorically more often than not), it has been, for our entire history, part and parcel of our constitutional framework. It has guided behavior in office, and ensured that government largely remains within bounds. So it should be now.

I am one of those non-partisan citizens who view the current process as necessary, but unfortunately infected with partisan rancor. (I know many accuse me of being a partisan, but that comes from profound misunderstanding of both the concept and my attitudes.) Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

I 100% support the idea of impeachment. It is there for a reason.
that reason is that if there is a president that does something so criminal (IE putting the entire nations freedom at risk)
or commits a crime so horrible (IE murder) that he can no longer effectively run the country.

Then that person needs to be removed sooner than later. It is an emergency gap for a just in case situation.
It is not meant to be used for what it is currently being used for.

which is a 2020 campaign.

ttwtt78640 said:

Actually, you did by bringing up the rule of law.

Click to expand...

The rule of law as it applies to his own crimes and those of his sycophants. Holding him accountable by impeachment is supporting the rule of law since removing him opens him up to prosecution.

Derp.

Rosie1 said:

There is no other way, other than vote him out in 2020.

When Nixon was voted out, it was bi-partisan, and the republicans had more ethics. He did a lot less than Trump has done.

Click to expand...

There was never an impeachment vote, there was the threat of a vote, hence why he resigned instead.
And as to bipartisanship, recall that such bipartisanship was wholly nonexistent until the Nixon Tapes were revealed.
Prior to that, the atmosphere among Republicans faintly mirrored today's, with the recognition that today's partisan atmosphere is much more heavily charged than it was back then.
Still, GOP stonewalling of the House impeachment inquiry was not all that much different up to that point.
Conservative pundits made similar predictions of failure all the way up until the Saturday Night Massacre and the tapes.

ttwtt78640 said:

Disciplining a child hopefully does not consist of removing them from the family home for anything short of the most serious of (violent?) crimes. The question is, and always will be, what alleged criminal act rises to the level of removing a sitting POTUS from office a few months short of their possible re-election?

Click to expand...

I appreciate your error, as it is a common (and often deliberate) misconception. Impeachment has never required criminal conduct, and importing criminal standards is a gross error. Criminal conduct is certainly something that meets the standard, whenever it occurs. But this error proceeds from the perception that occupying the office (any office, not just potus) is a right, not a privilege. It is not. The framers' approach was that it was an honor that continued only so long as honorably acquitted. It exists entirely separate from election (which is why barring an impeached person from regaining office is a separate consideration), and from criminal processes.

NWRatCon said:

Impeachment, in my view (and others like me), is what establishes our standard for appropriate behavior in office. Failure to invoke it when justified alters what is deemed "appropriate conduct". When I was in uniform I lived by the truism that "ignoring inappropriate behavior is an implicit endorsement of that behavior." That principle continues to guide me. It should guide all of us. In the context of impeachment it is always, "if not now, when?" A corollary is always, "if now, why?" The Constitution must always be the answer.

Click to expand...

Using impeachment to establish a “standard for appropriate behavior” is potentially perilous. Such reasoning leads to the possibility of impeachment utilized for arguably appropriate behavior.

Let’s suppose Congress, specifically the House, disagrees with how the President has conducted his war powers. Specifically, the House collectively believed Lincoln’s act of ordering a blockade of the Confederate States, and his authorizing the seizure of property and possessions located on the seas and belonging to people domiciled in the Confederacy, was not “appropriate behavior in office.” So, to set a “standard” to determine “appropriate behavior in office” they impeach Lincoln. Essentially stating the blockade and authorized seizure of property was not “appropriate behavior in office.”

Yet, your reasoning lead unimpeded, well justifies is more accurate, impeachment when and where the House wants to set a “standard” for “appropriate behavior.” Your reasoning justifies a broad broom approach to sweep executive conduct that is arguably permitted into impeachment to set a standard against what is arguably appropriate behavior.

Of you can resort that you said “failure to invoke it when justified” is a limiting factor my argument ignores. Yet, that isn’t a limiting factor at all, or it is de minimis, as what is “justified” use seems to be entirely subjective.

The Constitution says, inter alia, “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The motivation and justification should be that this conduct is so egregious, as shown by the facts, that it is a high crime or misdemeanor. Therefore, impeachment is justified. Impeachment should be used to establish what is or isn’t a high crime and misdemeanor, reserved for the most egregious conduct, and not a carving tool by the House to mold what it deems as “appropriate.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keridan said:

I couldn't agree with your statement more(period) It was written for a reason and made challenging for a reason(period) It should always be considered an option, but if you are going to bring it, you better have proof ready to bring down the top office in the country or suffer the loss - either is fine, but that's the choice

Click to expand...

Impeachment “always considered an option” is tantamount to the president’s head always on Robespierre’s guillotine and counting the number of thumbs pointed down as to determine whether to attempt to chop off the head of the president.

“Always considered an option”? That absolute statements covers, unfortunately, what arguably is appropriate behavior by the executive but not palatable behavior from the perception of the House. So, to fashion a Northern Star to guide future presidents of what the House deems appropriate by its collective opinion, they impeach the president for arguably appropriate behavior.

Impeachment isn’t “always considered an option.” It is more akin to the nuclear option, reserved for consideration for the most egregious conduct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ludin said:

I 100% support the idea of impeachment. It is there for a reason.
that reason is that if there is a president that does something so criminal (IE putting the entire nations freedom at risk)
or commits a crime so horrible (IE murder) that he can no longer effectively run the country.

Then that person needs to be removed sooner than later. It is an emergency gap for a just in case situation.
It is not meant to be used for what it is currently being used for.

which is a 2020 campaign.

Click to expand...

The constitution says "misdemeanors" what misdemeanors are okay for removal in your eyes?