Politicspolitics

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 05:59 AM

Someone please tell Nancy that she and a few committee chairmen are NOT

a coequal branch of government. That's why a House vote on impeachment is necessary. Arguably the Senate and House together are a coequal branch.

61 replies, 461 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Someone please tell Nancy that she and a few committee chairmen are NOT (Original post)
Dumper Wednesday OP
Gunslinger201 Wednesday #1
DDKick Wednesday #2
Independent.mind Wednesday #3
Carl Wednesday #4
Independent.mind Wednesday #7
Currentsitguy Wednesday #35
Independent.mind Wednesday #36
Carl Wednesday #49
Solesurvivor Wednesday #5
Independent.mind Wednesday #8
Dumper Wednesday #6
Independent.mind Wednesday #9
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #38
Independent.mind Wednesday #39
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #41
Independent.mind Wednesday #42
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #43
Independent.mind Wednesday #44
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #46
Fiendish Thingy-BC Wednesday #50
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #52
quad489 Wednesday #10
Independent.mind Wednesday #11
quad489 Wednesday #12
Independent.mind Wednesday #15
quad489 Wednesday #19
Independent.mind Wednesday #20
quad489 Wednesday #22
Independent.mind Wednesday #23
quad489 Wednesday #24
Independent.mind Wednesday #25
quad489 Wednesday #28
Independent.mind Wednesday #30
quad489 Wednesday #31
Independent.mind Wednesday #32
quad489 Wednesday #33
Independent.mind Wednesday #34
quad489 Wednesday #37
Independent.mind Wednesday #45
quad489 Wednesday #48
Independent.mind Wednesday #53
quad489 Wednesday #54
Independent.mind Wednesday #55
quad489 Wednesday #13
Independent.mind Wednesday #16
quad489 Wednesday #17
Independent.mind Wednesday #18
quad489 Wednesday #21
Sullivan Wednesday #58
quad489 Wednesday #59
Solesurvivor Wednesday #60
GoldwatersSoul Wednesday #40
quad489 Wednesday #61
Grumpy Pickle Wednesday #26
Valishin Wednesday #56
quad489 Wednesday #14
Grumpy Pickle Wednesday #27
quad489 Wednesday #29
Valishin Wednesday #57
Valishin Wednesday #47
Carl Wednesday #51

Response to Dumper (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 06:06 AM

1. She is Trumps Equal, she said so

Her and Schiff won’t survive this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 06:23 AM

2. She is a joke!

She will be known as the worst first female speaker. Democrats have lost more seats across the country because of her alone than ever before in history.

Their game is up, this fake impeachment with the Saturday night live Shiff are the laughing stock of the world.

This is nothing more than an attempt to interfere with the 2020 election nothing more.

The corruption is being laid bare daily now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 06:49 AM

3. Please cite the constitutional requirements and/or house rules

That require a full house vote for an impeachment inquiry to proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 06:57 AM

4. There may be none but is this the way people want things to happen?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html

"The reasons Pelosi is not planning a vote are both practical and political: Taking the step of passing a formal impeachment inquiry resolution is a complicated and time-consuming endeavor that has political downsides, from drafting the exact language of the resolution, to holding a complicated floor debate and to putting some members in a tough spot.

Moreover, having a vote on an impeachment inquiry resolution would give Republicans an opening to argue they should have subpoena power like in past impeachment proceedings, something that Democrats would almost certainly never allow."

It is the same as when she tried to deem that Ocare passed in the house without a roll call vote.
No matter anyones opinion on the overall matter this is something that should repulse anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:46 AM

7. What people want is not relevant.

House rules and the constitution are what matter.

I'm not saying I agree with impeaching Trump but to place artificial requirements that do not exist in the constitution or in the rules of the house may be a losing strategy legally speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:26 AM

35. It isn't exactly artificial, it's a strategy

The White House by it's refusal to cooperate is forcing the House Democrats to go on record with a vote. You are correct in that the Constitution is rather vague about the whole process. Both sides are playing politics and from a Constitutional standpoint, I don't see either one as more out of line than the other.

Generally speaking, just as like with Clinton, when I see only one Party leading the entire effort, I see it as an illegitimate political game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:32 AM

36. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 12:20 PM

49. Now wait a minute,thought you said you would condemn foolish,waste of time,purely political

stunts by the House dem majority.

Instead you imply support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:00 AM

5. Show me the house rules where a person must testify

Without needing to be subpoenaed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:47 AM

8. I can't and therefore won't argue that anyone must testify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:22 AM

6. TRADITION and due process. AND, The Const didn't say

due process didn't apply to impeachment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:49 AM

9. Tradition is not law

The constitution and the house rules determine how an impeachment or impeachment inquiry will proceed.

As I stated in another post imposing artificial requirements that do no exist in either the constitution or the house rules may be a losing strategy legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:40 AM

38. In fact....

Law in the US is made off precedent and Juris Prudence. While not codified in the Constitution...undertaking an endeavor as serioud as impeachment based on modern whims is not only stupid it id dangerous. Our laws are indeed a priduct of past activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:43 AM

39. True but anything based only on precedent and tradition can be subject to legal review

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #39)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:02 AM

41. Marbury vs. Madison...

Insured judicial review. As it stands now, the Majority party is the arbiter of all subpoenas and power to question witnesses. Do you think THAT would pass a judicial review if only one side could investigate and voir dire a witness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #41)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:07 AM

42. No

However my point still stands, when precedent and tradition are your sole or major points of argument you are risking an overturn by the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:11 AM

43. As noted...

The precedent argument about the rules of impeachment are pretty apt and powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:12 AM

44. That may be but you are still putting your faith in the courts to find your way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:32 AM

46. Impeachment eventually ends...

In the court. I dont think this "impeachment " is real at all. The Dems want to hurt the president with the specter of impeachment but do not want to hurt themselves with an actual process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #46)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 12:28 PM

50. The courts have no say in impeachment votes or trials

Only in the enforcement of subpoenas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy-BC (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 12:35 PM

52. Dipshit..

What do you think this is about??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:54 AM

10. Precedent....see impeachment of Nixon and Clinton for reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:55 AM

11. So nothing in the constitution or the house rules then, just "precedent"?

Might be a loosing strategy legally speaking to rely on that as precedent can be overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:06 AM

12. It's cute you are OK w/the precedents your dem-lefties have been setting for how the next dem POTUS

...should be treated by the other party members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:23 AM

15. It's cute the right argues that the constitution is the final arbiter until it isn't

because of "precedent"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:51 AM

19. It's cute when lefties believe the US Constitution ISN'T the final arbiter on issues detailed in it

and then try to ignore the 10th amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:52 AM

20. I am a proponent of the constitution and of states rights and always have been

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:54 AM

22. Really? Where does the US Constitution says illegals born in the US are US citizens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:59 AM

23. It is argued that the 14th amendment grants citizenship

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language could certainly lead to a challenge to the situation you reference.

Can you cite any court cases on this and what the rulings were?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:03 AM

24. ''Can you cite any court cases on this and what the rulings were?''...so now the constitution ISN'T

the final arbiter, eh???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:07 AM

25. No I am saying the constitution is the final arbiter and the 14th seems to imply

that they would be granted citizenship.
I am saying that the language of the amendment could lead to a legal challenge based on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:15 AM

28. ''the 14th seems to imply that they would be granted citizenship''..nope, wrong again. It's already

been to the USSC a few times and reinforced that babies of illegals are not US citizens...see 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case and 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court cases. Someone needs to challenge the current misuse of the 14th amendment again and stop the anchor babies bullshit once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:23 AM

30. From the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

"This case . . . presents for determination the single question . . . namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

For clarity I am of the opinion, and I am not a lawyer, that this ruling is specific enough to leave room for a legal challenge to the current status quo of children of illegal immigrants being granted birthright citizenship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:50 AM

31. ''a permanent domicile''...is the key phrase, illegals can't have a legal domicile in the US. Next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:53 AM

32. You brought this up not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:07 AM

33. Yep, and neither case gives the children of illegals automatic US citizenship. Feel free to present

other USSC cases that prove your claim that anything born on US soil is automatically an US citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:13 AM

34. Feel free to link to a post where I made the claim that

"anything born on US soil is automatically an US citizen"

Your deflection and attempt to assign positions to me that I have never posted support of is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:34 AM

37. ''Your deflection and attempt to assign positions to me''....your white flag is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:22 AM

45. Link up where I have advocated for birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants

That is a position I have never taken.

Your refusal due to complete inability to back up your claim "Feel free to present other USSC cases that prove your claim that anything born on US soil is automatically an US citizen." that I have stated anything even resembling this position is the white flag here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 12:11 PM

48. So there is no USSC cases that hold the dem-lefties position.........thanks for confirming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 01:29 PM

53. Deflecting once again

Back up your claim that I support what you stated "prove your claim that anything born on US soil is automatically an US citizen."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 01:47 PM

54. So you DON'T believe children of illegals born in the US are US citizens...got it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #54)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 02:01 PM

55. Deflecting once again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:09 AM

13. Your dem-lefties don't want it going to court, else they would've subpoena'd people already...

"Might be a loosing strategy legally speaking to rely on that as precedent can be overturned."

...they know they are ''legally speaking'' on the losing side here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:24 AM

16. I am content to watch and see how it plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:26 AM

17. Ya, no surprise there..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:33 AM

18. I see no legal requirement for a full house floor vote to proceed with the inquiry

You have not cited any legal requirement for such a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:53 AM

21. Cool, I see no legal requirement for anyone to show up and be questioned by those clowns........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 03:06 PM

58. There is no legal requirement to do so. Righty is lying.

Trump doesn't tell the House how to run their investigation of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #58)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 04:12 PM

59. 'Righty is lying''...what am I lying about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sullivan (Reply #58)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 04:17 PM

60. The house has no right to question anyone without a subpoena

So the house can pound sand until they vote on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:43 AM

40. Precendent is how American law...

Is generally created. It is based on the Old Engish Common law system or "shire" law.

The reason Pelosi doesnt want to do this correctly is that it signals congresspeople in swing distrcts who want a partisan impeachment... Americans dont like that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 04:18 PM

61. Yep...and her side-stepping how it's been done in the past is setting up a new precedent...

...on how the next democrat POTUS will be treated by a repub controlled house of reps. In fact, for equality purposes, the next democrat POTUS should be treated exactly how Trump has been treated these last 3 years. To do any less is NOT showing equality etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:14 AM

26. The FULL House is the Legal entity....not a handful of committee chairmen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 02:56 PM

56. Who said they can't?

The conflict revolves around the definition of a legitimate legislative agenda. The HoR leadership wants that definition to be because individual members of leadership said so. Which is fine internally, but to meet that standard when dealing with external entities they are being held to a higher standard, specifically show the legislation. Which means either articles of impeachment that are filed and being considered, or if you want a more broad investigation then a resolution to formally start the process.

The conflict is going through the correct process is politically problematic for the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:10 AM

14. Sure wish the US Senate would start sending out subpoenas...................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:15 AM

27. They should be pushing back on the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:16 AM

29. Yep, they should be doing that too..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 02:57 PM

57. For what?

They don't have any legislation in front of them to investigate either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:35 AM

47. This is both right and wrong at the same time

The House does not require the Senate's contribution to engage in the impeachment process the Constitution is very clear on that matter. But it is true that neither is the peer to the Executive Branch.

What the dems need is a formal means of starting the process. A vote by the entire House to start a formal investigation would do it. Alternatively there is an argument for formal articles of impeachment as a bill to go through the process as the catalyst. The problem with the later is that it requires listing the offenses and that legally sets the scope of the investigation; which is why even though they have plenty of people willing submitted such a document they aren't basing the investigation off of those because it would severely limit the investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 12:31 PM

51. Not to mention that this entire sham is not to investigate cause for impeachment but to create one.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/house-democrats-enlist-risky-legal-move-in-impeachment-probe

Then this travesty.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/27/house-intelligence-committee-impeachment-1516995

"The three House committee chairs pursuing the investigation — Schiff, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) — told Pompeo on Friday that his refusal to comply with the Foreign Affairs panel’s subpoena would be used as evidence of obstruction that could form the basis of a distinct article of impeachment.

“The subpoenaed documents shall be part of the impeachment inquiry and shared among the committees. Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry,” the three chairmen wrote."

Banana Republic crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics