Some of my less learned posters need a primer on impeachable offences.

Micawber said:
For once the electoral college had the chance to prove its usefulness and it failed.
Click to expand...

democrats1.gif
 
Into the Night said:
You argued quite the opposite actually. I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand this.

Irrelevant. The Elector can vote for whoever he wants, so long as ONE of them is not from the State the elector is in.
Cheney was a resident of TX at the time. He does have to live there. The court broke the law (and so did that elector).
Click to expand...

That means the electors from Texas could not constitutionally vote for both Bush and Cheney (if Cheney was actually a resident of Texas).
 
Flash said:
That means the electors from Texas could not constitutionally vote for both Bush and Cheney (if Cheney was actually a resident of Texas).
Click to expand...
That's right. You finally have it figure out. Now let's see if you can remember it. Oh, and Cheney was a resident of TX at the time.
 
Into the Night said:
That's right. You finally have it figure out. Now let's see if you can remember it. Oh, and Cheney was a resident of TX at the time.
Click to expand...

Then it was unconstitutional for Texas electors to vote for both Bush and Cheney and Gore and Kerry should have won the presidency.

And I had it figured out but just explained it poorly.
 
The 2nd & 3rd hand witnesses in the kangaroo court trial all affirmed they saw no criminal or impeachable offenses
committed. Now your clown show is over. Pencilneck blew it. It's in the Senate.
The House creates. The Senate judges. Get over it. :cool:
 
Jarod said:
In Federalist 65, one of the principal architects of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses are those that arise from the "misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."He explains that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a common law term used to describe offences that are "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

As you may or not have learned in your provencal schools, the executive is not the only constitutional officer who can be impeached. Judicial officers have more often been the subject of impeachment, using the same standard laid out by the Constitution, and in those cases less than a third have been impeached due to statutorily criminal offences. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf (page 9) Interestingly, Federal Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for, among other things,
appearing on the bench “in a state of total intoxication.” ibid. This was not a crime.

President Johnson was specifically impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act, which was not a criminal statute and violation of it was not a criminal act. HE was also impeached for criticizing Congress and questioning its legislative authority. These are not criminal acts.

As you can see, historical precedent illustrates, that while it appears that President Trump has committed several criminal acts, impeachment does not require such.


So PLEASE stop spewing your uneducated crap. Thank you!
Click to expand...

you mean like representatives in the house abusing power of impeachment? I think you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top