RE: 21 U.S. states will not allow syrian refugees
November 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 2:52 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(November 18, 2015 at 9:00 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(November 18, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I have no doubt SCOTUS would void any conviction based on the fact that no crime had been demonstrated. And more to the point, I have no doubt that the Congress, knowing that, would not dream of charging a President with a non-crime.The SCOTUS can't reverse a presidential impeachment. It has no jurisdiction in the matter other than the Chief Justice presides over it. But once the Senate convicts it's a done deal.
Perhaps. If you remember your high-school civics, the Court didn't have the power of review either; nowhere in the Constitution is it written that one of the Court's functions is to ensure that laws comport with the Constitution.
(November 18, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(November 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That's not what the Constitution says. Reread the link I posted earlier in this thread. The Constitution specifically names "high crimes and misdemeanors" as causes for impeachment -- and more to the point, no other causes.What was Andrew Johnson charged with?
In order to bring a charge, you have to, you know, have a charge. That's why Clinton was charged with perjury, rather than, say, being a Democrat. That's because perjury is on the books as being illegal.
I'm still waiting for WoG to enumerate any crime he thinks Obama should be charged with. Seems to me like he cannot come up with one.
"Unfit to be president
There were 11 counts, nine of which repeated over and again that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act by firing Stanton. The last two accused him of bringing Congress into "disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach" by speeches he had given, and the 11th summarized the other 10 and said Johnson's conduct demonstrated his unfitness to be president."
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/...care-today
So if the House does actually impeach the President and if the Senate does actually convict him who is going to overturn the proceedings?
So what you're telling me is that they charged him with the illegal act of firing Stanton. I get that the other stuff was window-dressing ... but they charged him with a violation of the law.
How, exactly, is that supposed to contradict my point? If you want to contradict my point, find us an impeachment which has no mention of illegal behavior.
Oh, and hey, are you ever going to answer my question? What charges would you level against Obama? Given your silence on the matter, I'm starting to think you got nothin'.
