• 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!

Constitutional Crisis

I have asked this here before: What happens (details) if we have a Constitutional Crisis? If the Administration manages to get Mueller removed what are the next steps in our government? I realize that this is speculation, but the term (Const. Crisis) has been bandied about for the last ten months or more. Was the Watergate event a C.C.?

The investigation would continue as it did in Watergate the Donald cannot avoid his destiny.
 
The investigation would continue as it did in Watergate the Donald cannot avoid his destiny.

So much for the presumption of innocence.

The President isn't above the law... but I think it's a mistake for people on the left to treat him as though he were below it either.

You may not realize it - the President might not realize it - but Bob Mueller is pretty much the truest friend Donald Trump has in Washington right now. A true friend backs you up when you've done right and tells you straight when you haven't. What's more, he bails you out when you get into a jam.

Bob Mueller is about as straight a shooter as anyone you're going to find with his experience on either side of the aisle. He calls things as he sees them and doesn't give a rat's ass about petty partisan games. He's doing this job to see justice done, pure and simple. If that means that the President is not guilty, so be it... I've got no doubt whatsoever he'd be the first to admit it if his investigation doesn't find anything on the President.... so he's the only one who can get the President out of the fix he's in. Not because he's a yes-man or a flunky like the people the President has surrounded himself with... but because if there truly is nothing to the accusations, Mueller will find that out.

On the other hand, if Mueller is pushed out the door, then the nails are in the coffin for the President. Then it's just a waiting game... because after that point, there will be nothing he'll be able to do to convince the American people that he didn't have something to hide. By that point, I hazard to guess that even the majority of Republicans will be questioning the President. All the King's Horses and all the King's men won't be able to put Trumpty Dumpty back together again.
 
I have asked this here before: What happens (details) if we have a Constitutional Crisis? If the Administration manages to get Mueller removed what are the next steps in our government? I realize that this is speculation, but the term (Const. Crisis) has been bandied about for the last ten months or more. Was the Watergate event a C.C.?

Ballot box. We vote every two years. And, an act like that will cost the GOP dearly.
 
This guy thinks we are in a constitution crisis

Thanks dumb uninformed gop voters
 
This guy thinks we are in a constitution crisis

Thanks dumb uninformed gop voters


This former military man is a smart guy; he understands that Trump has turned America into a 'Jonestown' like cult

Trump supporters will cling to Trump as their savior even if that means going down with him, and America

Trump is the head of a cult; he will destroy America & his supporters are part & parcel of that destruction

make no mistake
 
Last edited:
A political crisis. Not a constitutional one. He has the authority to fire Mueller and if the Congress disagrees and believes he's obstructed the investigation they have a Constitutional remedy - impeachment. The fact that they might not choose to pursue that remedy doesn't make it a Constitutional crisis.

If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.
 
If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.

Hate to burst your bubble but no it isn’t. At least not a Constitutional one.

And how would you prove that “Congress is in on the scam”? Is the fact that it doesn’t reach your preferred outcome enough?
 
If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.

Not mutually exclusive, so either or both, and correct on both, or one, or the other.
From where I sit, quite a few in Congress seem to BE "in on the scam" at some level or other but it remains to be seen if they too have broken any laws.
 
Hate to burst your bubble but no it isn’t. At least not a Constitutional one.

And how would you prove that “Congress is in on the scam”? Is the fact that it doesn’t reach your preferred outcome enough?

Ever hear of the act of 1871?. Congress has been a scam since then.

The fact that they are not acting on the many constitutional or law violations of trump and allowing the environmental damages is a government destruction of unalienable rights.
 
Not mutually exclusive, so either or both, and correct on both, or one, or the other.
From where I sit, quite a few in Congress seem to BE "in on the scam" at some level or other but it remains to be seen if they too have broken any laws.

The REINS act has them ready to destroy unalienable rights, for one. The standing down while trump guts environmental protections is another. They really should have intervened in Puerto Rico
 
Ever hear of the act of 1871?. Congress has been a scam since then.

The fact that they are not acting on the many constitutional or law violations of trump and allowing the environmental damages is a government destruction of unalienable rights.

What act of 1871?

Look I understand what you’re saying but the simple fact is that Congress gets to decide whether a crime is impeachable or not. You may not like the outcome but the system is working as designed.
 
What act of 1871?

Look I understand what you’re saying but the simple fact is that Congress gets to decide whether a crime is impeachable or not. You may not like the outcome but the system is working as designed.

Hmmm, perhaps you are not yet quite educated enough to reasonably undertake this discussion if you do not know about this.

Corp. U.S. - the Columbia Organic Act of 1871

The following shows that congress is in violation of the law, their oaths and the constitution, and has been that way since 1911

A video explaining a search of the congressional record by Bill Walker.

Walker - YouTube


This document has links to the letter sent to the clerk of congress and other aspects related.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file47.pdf

Such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article1...eks-official-congressional-count-on-apps-html

However, congress refused to start counting applications occuring before the letter. The speakers were sued.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/doc4.pdf

That suit, of course was denied. Government is deeply unlawful. These .pdf's by Bill Walker explain the developing status.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf

National Archives and Records Administration Attempts Termination of Article V Convention

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file77.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file78.pdf
 
Hmmm, perhaps you are not yet quite educated enough to reasonably undertake this discussion if you do not know about this.

Corp. U.S. - the Columbia Organic Act of 1871

The following shows that congress is in violation of the law, their oaths and the constitution, and has been that way since 1911

A video explaining a search of the congressional record by Bill Walker.

Walker - YouTube


This document has links to the letter sent to the clerk of congress and other aspects related.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file47.pdf

Such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article1...eks-official-congressional-count-on-apps-html

However, congress refused to start counting applications occuring before the letter. The speakers were sued.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/doc4.pdf

That suit, of course was denied. Government is deeply unlawful. These .pdf's by Bill Walker explain the developing status.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf

National Archives and Records Administration Attempts Termination of Article V Convention

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file77.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file78.pdf


No need to be condescending. My level of education - both classroom and real world - is fine.

Fine enough in fact that I read the Columbia Organic Act of 1871 and it doesn't say what the website you linked to thinks it says. It simply repealed charters of Washington and Georgetown and created a new government for the district of columbia in it's entirety.
It didn't create a corportion in the sense used in the linked article, it didn't turn Congress into a "scam." It truthfully sounds more like a conspiracy theorist wet dream than anything else.

And what does that have to do with Congress and impeachment in any case? Are you going to seriously argue that Congress hasn't had any authority for the past 150 years? That's even more ridiculous than the people who continue on about Obama's birth certificate as if we could replay those eight years.
 
It'd depend on the reason for firing him. See 28 CFR §600.7(d):

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

I do believe that Mueller should be fired for "Conflict of Interest", Mueller's allegiance lies not in trying to find the truth, but, covering butts of those he is indebted to.

Mueller is dirty and should be removed. Here is an article from judicial watch: https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/...-helped-cover-fla-9-11-probe-court-docs-show/
 
My level of education - both classroom and real world - is fine.

It didn't create a corportion in the sense used in the linked article,

And what does that have to do with Congress and impeachment in any case? Are you going to seriously argue that Congress hasn't had any authority for the past 150 years?

Hmm, not a word about congress failing to count applications for an Article V convention. Indicating you have no interest in the unlawfulness of congress. This factor puts your opinions in question and classrooms do not teach about the act of 1871 at all and you've already admitted your experience does not include knowledge of the act of 1871.

This was assembled under the direction of Daniel Sheehan a constitutional scholar.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Our founding fathers wrote the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence as protection for our inalienable rights as free people, yet since 1871 our rights have been systematically stripped away. And in its place, an illusion of freedom was created by those in power in order to avoid civil unrest while keeping us all living in servitude to a militaristic corporation. Unfortunately the truth shows us that we have in fact surrendered our freedom willingly through our silence and ignorance. Once a symbol of freedom and hope, the Constitution has been disregarded by a government who have replaced the Republic with a democracy. Most people are unaware of this because they simply do not know the truth.
To understand what happened to America, we must go back to the year 1871 and relearn what was never taught to us in school.
THE ACT OF 1871
On February 21, 1871, the Forty-First Congress–also known as the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62–passed the Act of 1871: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” Without constitutional authority, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is literally a piece of land that extends out for only 10 miles. But why?
After the Civil War our nation was essentially bankrupt, and America was very vulnerable to European interests. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a strategic maneuver created by the international bankers to gain a stronghold on America. Knowing that the nation was in financial trouble, Congress made a deal with the Rothschild’s of London thereby incurring a debt. As we know banks do not lend money unless it is in their best interest, so the Crown of London created way to gain control of the United States. Thus the Act of 1871 was passed, and THE UNITED STATES corporation was born.
Note the capitalization; this is very important. Now owned by foreign interests, this corporation obliterated the original version of the Constitution with the Act of 1871. Our beloved Constitution was defaced as the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of”. The original Constitution was written in this manner: “The Constitution for the united states of America” is now changed to: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”... a corporate constitution. This constitution operates in an economic capacity, and has been used as a tool to fool the People into thinking that it is the same Constitution created by our Founding Fathers. The capitalization of names on legal documents may seem minor, yet have major impacts on each generation born in this country. What the Congress did was create a constitution for the corporate government of the District of Columbia, and not that of America. This corporate constitution serves outside of the original Constitution. It does not benefit the Republic nor its people, yet serves only to benefit the corporation. Rather than having inalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we now have ‘privileges’.​
 
If the congress is in on the scam, then its a crisis.

The congress is in on the scam. 15 years ago it passed the patriot act which nullifies the 4th Amendment. During Obama's administration it passed NDAA amendments that nullifies Habeas Corpus. If that's not being in on the destruction of constitutional governance, I don't know what is. Yes, that destruction is a bipartisan effort.
 
(ed: edited to meet DP post length restrictions)

THE ACT OF 1871
On February 21, 1871, the Forty-First Congress–also known as the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62–passed the Act of 1871: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” Without constitutional authority, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is literally a piece of land that extends out for only 10 miles. But why?
After the Civil War our nation was essentially bankrupt, and America was very vulnerable to European interests. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a strategic maneuver created by the international bankers to gain a stronghold on America. Knowing that the nation was in financial trouble, Congress made a deal with the Rothschild’s of London thereby incurring a debt. As we know banks do not lend money unless it is in their best interest, so the Crown of London created way to gain control of the United States. Thus the Act of 1871 was passed, and THE UNITED STATES corporation was born.
Note the capitalization; this is very important. Now owned by foreign interests, this corporation obliterated the original version of the Constitution with the Act of 1871. Our beloved Constitution was defaced as the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of”. The original Constitution was written in this manner: “The Constitution for the united states of America” is now changed to: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”... a corporate constitution. This constitution operates in an economic capacity, and has been used as a tool to fool the People into thinking that it is the same Constitution created by our Founding Fathers. The capitalization of names on legal documents may seem minor, yet have major impacts on each generation born in this country. What the Congress did was create a constitution for the corporate government of the District of Columbia, and not that of America. This corporate constitution serves outside of the original Constitution. It does not benefit the Republic nor its people, yet serves only to benefit the corporation. Rather than having inalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we now have ‘privileges’.[/INDENT]


The Act of 1871 - which I actually took the time to read btw - is a completely legitimate exercise of Congress' powers see Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress was granted control over the district. There is no limitation on that control such that Congress cannot put in place a administrative apparatus to actually run the city. In fact not doing so would be stupid especially given the rapid population growth and the fact that district was lacking things like paved roads. It did not turn the United States into some corporate entity that foreign bankers bought with loans. Nor did it wipe out the US Constitution. This is frankly bat **** crazy talk.

On the Article V stuff. I read the complaint and most of the motions. Some guy claims that since 35 states have separately asked Congress for a Constitutional convention since 1910 Congress is obligated to call one under Article V of the Constitution. Mitch Mcconnell disagrees. A court will eventially decide.

How does any of this make Congress "unlawful" in your words. It doesn't.
 
I have asked this here before: What happens (details) if we have a Constitutional Crisis? If the Administration manages to get Mueller removed what are the next steps in our government? I realize that this is speculation, but the term (Const. Crisis) has been bandied about for the last ten months or more. Was the Watergate event a C.C.?

It means we will be relying on tribalistic republicans who consistently put party over country to convict Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and have him impeached knowing full well that it will likely cause the end of the Republican party as we know it. The more likely scenario is that they will make excuses in order to pretend that decision wasn't a criminal act at all.
 
Would it be un-Constitutional to fire Mueller? Not smart, maybe. But not legal?

It is the textbook definition of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is a high crime. The constitution states that the president is to be impeached for such offenses.

In truth, he is already guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice that would have gotten President Obama impeached by Republicans months ago, but they are willfully allowing a criminal president to continue because they know their base doesn't care so long as he's a Republican.
 
The Act of 1871 - which I actually took the time to read btw - is a completely legitimate exercise of Congress' powers see Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress was granted control over the district. There is no limitation on that control such that Congress cannot put in place a administrative apparatus to actually run the city. In fact not doing so would be stupid especially given the rapid population growth and the fact that district was lacking things like paved roads. It did not turn the United States into some corporate entity that foreign bankers bought with loans. Nor did it wipe out the US Constitution. This is frankly bat **** crazy talk.

On the Article V stuff. I read the complaint and most of the motions. Some guy claims that since 35 states have separately asked Congress for a Constitutional convention since 1910 Congress is obligated to call one under Article V of the Constitution. Mitch Mcconnell disagrees. A court will eventially decide.

How does any of this make Congress "unlawful" in your words. It doesn't.

Your misrepresentations amount to treason against the constitution when you fail to mention NOT COUNTING APPLICATIONS for an Article V and instead only refer to the unlawful act of refusing to call the convention the constitution calls for.

The epeal of net neutrality is another. Giving the internet in 1994 called the usenet to commerce (dot com) is another.

Mentioning McConnel as an authority seals the case. Done with you traitor.
 
It is the textbook definition of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is a high crime. The constitution states that the president is to be impeached for such offenses.

In truth, he is already guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice that would have gotten President Obama impeached by Republicans months ago, but they are willfully allowing a criminal president to continue because they know their base doesn't care so long as he's a Republican.


Absolutely, and well stated!

It is pretty clear that the republican party has been taken over.
 
Your misrepresentations amount to treason against the constitution when you fail to mention NOT COUNTING APPLICATIONS for an Article V and instead only refer to the unlawful act of refusing to call the convention the constitution calls for.

The epeal of net neutrality is another. Giving the internet in 1994 called the usenet to commerce (dot com) is another.

Mentioning McConnel as an authority seals the case. Done with you traitor.

I guess you didn't read the lawsuit you referenced. You really should read things before you reference them. It'd go a long way towards keeping you from looking really foolish. McConnell and Boehner (later replaced by Ryan) are the ones being sued. Not the Congress. Not the United States. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

What does "COUNTING APPLICATIONS" have to do with anything? So far the only people who apparently think that states asking for a Constitutional Convention in 1910 count towards a convention in 2018 are the people who filed the suit. No one else apparently thinks that way.

The usenet was never the internet. It's a facility that uses the internet.
 
I guess you didn't read the lawsuit you referenced. You really should read things before you reference them. It'd go a long way towards keeping you from looking really foolish. McConnell and Boehner (later replaced by Ryan) are the ones being sued. Not the Congress. Not the United States. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

What does "COUNTING APPLICATIONS" have to do with anything? So far the only people who apparently think that states asking for a Constitutional Convention in 1910 count towards a convention in 2018 are the people who filed the suit. No one else apparently thinks that way.

The usenet was never the internet. It's a facility that uses the internet.

Paul Ryan is not being sued. Qaulified immunity preempts that from happening. Ryan could be sued under his capacity, but not personally.
 
Paul Ryan is not being sued. Qaulified immunity preempts that from happening. Ryan could be sued under his capacity, but not personally.

All three were named in their capacity. Boehner was replaced by Ryan when Ryan became Speaker.
 
I guess you didn't read the lawsuit you referenced. You really should read things before you reference them. It'd go a long way towards keeping you from looking really foolish. McConnell and Boehner (later replaced by Ryan) are the ones being sued. Not the Congress. Not the United States. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

What does "COUNTING APPLICATIONS" have to do with anything? So far the only people who apparently think that states asking for a Constitutional Convention in 1910 count towards a convention in 2018 are the people who filed the suit. No one else apparently thinks that way.

The usenet was never the internet. It's a facility that uses the internet.

LOL, its not the parties it's the decision. Can't have a constitution with agents that keep trying to divert the focus and misrepresent. As if the social opinions of a dumbed down, manipulated society can dismiss an ideal vital to defense and enforcement of the constitution. Maybe Russians like your perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom