Political Funny Pictures Thread, pt. 2

[Bucky623]

All it good time.

View attachment 57328

 

[jamil]

All it good time.

One problem with that. No laws actually need to be broken to be impeached. All that needs to happen is to have the votes for it to happen. But there's a political price to pay for that if they can't convince citizens that the president actually needed to be impeached.

 

[Bucky623]

One problem with that. No laws actually need to be broken to be impeached. All that needs to happen is to have the votes for it to happen. But there's a political price to pay for that if they can't convince citizens that the president actually needed to be impeached.

My comment was in response to the last three lines.

 

[Route 45]

One problem with that. No laws actually need to be broken to be impeached. All that needs to happen is to have the votes for it to happen. But there's a political price to pay for that if they can't convince citizens that the president actually needed to be impeached.

Oh, there should be a lot more than just a political price. And I believe that there would be.

 

[jamil]

Oh, there should be a lot more than just a political price. And I believe that there would be.

Republicans paid a price for impeaching Clinton. And Clinton deserved it. What price do you think is due? Political dues are paid in public opinion. There is no other price proscribed by the constitution.

If your guy gets impeached, you get to vote against the people responsible. If the people responsible aren't in your districts, well the people in those districts get to make up their own minds whether they approve or not. That's how representative democracies work.

 

[Doug]

The fourth estate has become the fifth column.

 

[HoughMade]

One problem with that. No laws actually need to be broken to be impeached. All that needs to happen is to have the votes for it to happen....

I disagree. The Constitution states:

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Since Marbury v. Madison, the federal courts have had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional and unenforceable. I see no reason why an impeachment that does not comply with the Constitution is any different.

While the Supreme Court has held that the trial itself cannot be reviewed by a court as a non-justiciable controversy (Nixon v. U.S.), to my knowledge, there has never been a holding that endorses an impeachment that does not rise to the level of Article II, Section 4.

 

[historian]

I disagree. The Constitution states:


Since Marbury v. Madison, the federal courts have had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional and unenforceable. I see no reason why an impeachment that does not comply with the Constitution is any different.

While the Supreme Court has held that the trial itself cannot be reviewed by a court as a non-justiciable controversy (Nixon v. U.S.), to my knowledge, there has never been a holding that endorses an impeachment that does not rise to the level of Article II, Section 4.

Woah. A civil suit after the impeachment and conviction of the Senate. That would be trippy!

So then, the impeachment could be overturned by SCOTUS. I guess there would have to be a preliminary injunction in the Fed. Circuit Ct. almost immediately which would then determine if the President could remain in office while the civil suit happened...

 

[HoughMade]

Woah. A civil suit after the impeachment and conviction of the Senate. That would be trippy!

So then, the impeachment could be overturned by SCOTUS. I guess there would have to be a preliminary injunction in the Fed. Circuit Ct. almost immediately which would then determine if the President could remain in office while the civil suit happened...

Here's to hoping this never has to be tested.

I highly doubt that impeachment would even be attempted without articulating "crimes" as required by the Constitution. In my mind, the sole issue a court could review is whether the articles of impeachment and trial were at least for allegations of bribery, treason or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The procedures of the trial and the result could not be reviewed. Therefore, as long as the allegations met the Constitutional requirements, I would think there is nothing to review.

Keep in mind that the Nixon case I cited dealt with a federal judge who had already been criminally convicted of perjury and sentenced to 5 years before the impeachment started.

 

[jamil]

I disagree. The Constitution states:


Since Marbury v. Madison, the federal courts have had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional and unenforceable. I see no reason why an impeachment that does not comply with the Constitution is any different.

While the Supreme Court has held that the trial itself cannot be reviewed by a court as a non-justiciable controversy (Nixon v. U.S.), to my knowledge, there has never been a holding that endorses an impeachment that does not rise to the level of Article II, Section 4.

Well. Maybe we'll get to test that if Dems get control of congress. If the court weighed in on it, assuming that there's no real evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", it would probably be 5-4 tossing it out. But then half the country would be pissed, and much political capital would exchange hands.

But. I kinda think it would not come to that even if the Dems had a majority in both houses. There were plenty of calls to impeach Obama from the right, and if Republicans had taken majorities in both houses with enough time to do it, they would not have impeached Obama. Likely Obama would never have faced impeachment even if there were ample evidence he did commit high crimes and misdemeanors. They just didn't have the political capital for that.

Dems have more political capital to impeach Trump for no good reason, but if they were smart, they'd understand that they'd spend so much political capital doing it that it would cause a very large backlash, even among the honest people who don't support Trump. So even with all the talk, it ain't happening unless they have real convincing evidence that increases the political capital to do it.

My point was that it seems to me that political capital and which side has the lion's share determines how things work out in reality.

 

[HoughMade]

Well. Maybe we'll get to test that if Dems get control of congress. If the court weighed in on it, assuming that there's no real evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", it would probably be 5-4 tossing it out. But then half the country would be pissed, and much political capital would exchange hands.y....

Well, now you're talking about something different. The law seems clear that a court cannot review the evidence or the conclusion. Originally, the hypothetical was"there do not have to be crimes- they just need to vote to impeach him."

 

[jamil]

Well, now you're talking about something different. The law seems clear that a court cannot review the evidence or the conclusion. Originally, the hypothetical was"there do not have to be crimes- they just need to vote to impeach him."

I guess I was thinking of it in a different way. Why would it matter if congress just voted to impeach the president? So basically, say Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate. Some house ideologue initiate impeachment proceedings. It goes through the process, the House adopts the resolution to impeach and presents articles of impeachment to the Senate for, say, colluding with Russia to steal emails. Senate holds the trial and ultimately votes to impeach, but with really shaky evidence.

What would stop that other than not enough political capital to pull it off?

 

[MCgrease08]

Pics gang, pics. What's with all the words?

 

[txgho1911]

We watch and we wait. Gun proves uncooperative for fulfilling it's stereotype.

https://www.2ndvote.com/guncam/

 

[actaeon277]

Pics gang, pics. What's with all the words?

Our choices seem limited though.

 

[sharkey]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[historian]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Voters