• 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!

Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

ocean515 said:
I suppose some are codified. Likely it would be subjective and open to argument. Another one of those "depends on the definition of is" kind of things.
Click to expand...

Your supposition is unsupported... The HOUSE decides what’s constitutes a big crime or misdemeanor.. nobody else...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So this is what it looks like when the rats are trapped in a sinking ship....
 
ocean515 said:
I don't think the highly talented Lawyer's for the President need any input from me.
Click to expand...
So if the highly talented lawyers don't bring up the Fourth Amendment line of reasoning you suggested, will you suspect that that the Fourth Amendment line of reasoning doesn't apply in this case?
 
ocean515 said:
No government body is above the Constitution. Not one. Ever.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And the Constitution says the Senate are the only ones who can decide if an impeachment is warranted.
 
ocean515 said:
What protections does a citizen have from corrupt actions of the Senate?
Click to expand...
There's ballot box and, iIrc, the Senate has procedures for having a Senator removed.
Senators (unlike the PotUS) are subject to criminal indictment as well.

But I don't think there is a remedy for impeachment.
 
Last edited:
BlueTex said:
Of all the congressional subpoenas issued since 1880, can you cite ONE that was blocked by an appeals court or the Supreme Court?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Constitution protects citizens from government actions involving unreasonable search and seizure among other things.

The President apparently plans to appeal the decision by the Obama Judge.

On what basis do you think they are going to make that appeal?

Are you willing to answer this question? If not, that cool, and I will move on.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So if the highly talented lawyers don't bring up the Fourth Amendment line of reasoning you suggested, will you suspect that that the Fourth Amendment line of reasoning doesn't apply in this case?
Click to expand...

I just mentioned one thing that came to mind. I don't know what basis will be used to appeal.


Do you think citizens should have not right to appeal anything?
 
ocean515 said:
No, there is a claim from highly biased and politically motivated partisan politicians.
Click to expand...

As if...

Sorry that the investigation of Presidential misconduct bothers you, but that's what's going on.

What's partisan is the rights' failure to SEE what is in front of them.

There is no cure for "hear no evil, see no evil" republicans. They are bad for democracy, and good for tyranny.
 
ocean515 said:
The Constitution protects citizens from government actions involving unreasonable search and seizure among other things.

The President apparently plans to appeal the decision by the Obama Judge.

On what basis do you think they are going to make that appeal?

Are you willing to answer this question? If not, that cool, and I will move on.
Click to expand...


The stay was denied, so appeal away.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Exactly.

And the Constitution says the Senate are the only ones who can decide if an impeachment is warranted.
Click to expand...

I haven't disputed that.

The Senate can decide to fulfill their part of the process and vote to Impeach. So, the Congress votes to Impeach. Done deal.

Do you think the person who was impeached has no other recourse after that, if they believe their Constitutional rights were violated?


Under your interpretation, Congress could decide to remove a President just because.

What would keep a One Party controlled Congress, with sufficient majorities in both chambers to impeach, from removing every President and Vice President they don't like, or who won't do their bidding?

What would be the purpose of the Executive Branch if Congress actually had that power?
 
ocean515 said:
The President apparently plans to appeal the decision by the Obama Judge.
On what basis do you think they are going to make that appeal?
Are you willing to answer this question? If not, that cool, and I will move on.
Click to expand...

I'm having deja vu here

Simon W. Moon said:
Something similar to their previous argument probably.
What basis do you think they will use?

to wit:
"President Trump and his associated entities are before this court, claiming that the Oversight Committee’s subpoena to Mazars exceeds the Committee’s constitutional power to conduct investigations. The President argues that there is no legislative purpose for the subpoena. The Oversight Committee’s true motive, the President insists, is to collect personal information about him solely for political advantage. He asks the court to declare the Mazars subpoena invalid and unenforceable."​

They seem totally oblivious to your suggestion that the Fourth Amendment applies here.

Maybe drop them a helpful email about it?
Click to expand...
 
ocean515 said:
I haven't disputed that.

The Senate can decide to fulfill their part of the process and vote to Impeach. So, the Congress votes to Impeach. Done deal.

Do you think the person who was impeached has no other recourse after that, if they believe their Constitutional rights were violated?


Under your interpretation, Congress could decide to remove a President just because.

What would keep a One Party controlled Congress, with sufficient majorities in both chambers to impeach, from removing every President and Vice President they don't like, or who won't do their bidding?

What would be the purpose of the Executive Branch if Congress actually had that power?
Click to expand...


Impeached means you are removed from your job. You have no inherit "right" to be president, even if a majority didn't vote for you
 
OscarLevant said:
As if...

Sorry that the investigation of Presidential misconduct bothers you, but that's what's going on.

What's partisan is the rights' failure to SEE what is in front of them.

There is no cure for "hear no evil, see no evil" republicans. They are bad for democracy, and good for tyranny.
Click to expand...

The president has not committed any crime. What is going on here is the democrats searching for a crime, not investigating one. This is a search and destroy mission, not a search for justice. You dont care because...Trump.
 
ocean515 said:
I haven't disputed that.
The Senate can decide to fulfill their part of the process and vote to Impeach. So, the Congress votes to Impeach. Done deal.
Do you think the person who was impeached has no other recourse after that, if they believe their Constitutional rights were violated?
Click to expand...
I have tried hard for pages to say so.
Not sure why you are still unclear.

ocean515 said:
Under your interpretation, Congress could decide to remove a President just because.
What would keep a One Party controlled Congress, with sufficient majorities in both chambers to impeach, from removing every President and Vice President they don't like, or who won't do their bidding?
Click to expand...
the Constitution is pretty clear about the Senate being the only judges of the issue.
So that leaves the threat of retaliation from voters as the only thing which prevents a party from engaging in such conduct.

ocean515 said:
What would be the purpose of the Executive Branch if Congress actually had that power?
Click to expand...

Here you go:
"purpose of the Executive Branch" - Google Search
 
Simon W. Moon said:
There's ballot box and, iIrc, the Senate has procedures for having a Senator removed.
Senators (unlike the PotUS) are subject to criminal indictment as well.

But I don't think there is a remedy for impeachment.
Click to expand...

No Branch of government is above the Constitution.

Imagine if the US Congress looked like the California Legislature. A veto proof majority in both Chambers. If they act as one, the Governor of California isn't even needed for anything. Newsome is a nothing in California.

So, imagine that massive one party rule is in place in the US Congress.

Under the interpretation of many here, including you, that super majority in both Chambers, acting as one, could vote to remove any President they didn't like, for any reason they chose.

They could nullify the vote of every citizen, just because they felt like it. The voice of citizens would be meaningless, because, according to this argument you are making, Congress has no judicial review when it comes to impeachment.


You really think they have that power?
 
OscarLevant said:
Impeached means you are removed from your job. You have no inherit "right" to be president, even if a majority didn't vote for you
Click to expand...

Thats not what it means. Clinton was impeached. He was not removed.
 
Cougarbear said:
No, it is not. Congress has no ability to prosecute for a crime. Since no crime has been committed, then there is no obstruction of justice. You really should take some law classes and get educated instead of looking so lost and illiterate.
Click to expand...


Who is prosecuting for a crime? Congress is investigating Trump's conduct for purposes of determining whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment hearing, which it has every right to do.

Lost and illiterate? You might want to tend to that there foot-in-mouth disease, 'tis a sore sight.

Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records - POLITICO

In a 41-page opinion issued Monday, Mehta systematically dismantled the Trump legal team’s arguments against the validity of the subpoena — and he pushed back on claims from congressional Republicans that the House Judiciary Committee must formally launch an impeachment inquiry before issuing such subpoenas.

“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," Mehta wrote.

Mehta noted that Congress had twice investigated alleged illegal activity by presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. “Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president, before and after taking office,” Mehta wrote. “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”
Click to expand...

See, you got the cart and horse mixed up, Congress looks to see if there is unlawful conduct, which they wouldn't know about unless they investigated.

I'd say there is a ton of probable cause, but it just so happens that Congress doesn't need it, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
I have tried hard for pages to say so.
Not sure why you are still unclear.


the Constitution is pretty clear about the Senate being the only judges of the issue.
So that leaves the threat of retaliation from voters as the only thing which prevents a party from engaging in such conduct.



Here you go:
"purpose of the Executive Branch" - Google Search
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we've beat this thing into the ground.

Thanks for the exchange. I completely disagree with your interpretation, and I understand you disagree with mine.
 
ocean515 said:
Do you think citizens should have not right to appeal anything?
Click to expand...
To you, does that seem like an obvious strawman assertion on your part?

Or are you earnestly confused enough to think that I think no one ever gets any appeal for anything?
 
Fletch said:
The president has not committed any crime. What is going on here is the democrats searching for a crime, not investigating one. This is a search and destroy mission, not a search for justice. You dont care because...Trump.
Click to expand...
You may not be okay with what is happening, but there's no need to upset yourself even further by saying that this is a criminal investigation gone off the rails.


The Legislative Branch is not a law enforcement agency.


The Legislative Branch does not conduct law enforcement investigations.


The Legislative Branch conducts legislative investigations.


The legislative investigations are not subject to the same constraints as criminal investigations.


Legislative investigations are only constrained by the Legislative Branch's own determination of subjects on which “legislation could be had”.
 
ocean515 said:
No Branch of government is above the Constitution.
Imagine if the US Congress looked like the California Legislature. A veto proof majority in both Chambers. If they act as one, the Governor of California isn't even needed for anything. Newsome is a nothing in California.
So, imagine that massive one party rule is in place in the US Congress.
Under the interpretation of many here, including you, that super majority in both Chambers, acting as one, could vote to remove any President they didn't like, for any reason they chose.
They could nullify the vote of every citizen, just because they felt like it. The voice of citizens would be meaningless, because, according to this argument you are making, Congress has no judicial review when it comes to impeachment.
You really think they have that power?
Click to expand...

How are you still unclear?
I have gone over the issue several times explaining that there is no judicial review of the Senate's impeachment decisions.

Yes, a party could try to **** the country like that.

The Constitution was not designed around the use of modern political parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom