Politics Thread

[paulxu]

Senator Rand Paul:
“ I object to this unconstitutional sham of an “impeachment” trial and I will force a vote on whether the Senate can hold a trial of a private citizen.”

That’s what it means.

Precedent:

Nearly 150 years ago, a majority of senators voted that you could impeach and try a former officeholder — for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...ffice-n1255516

[Strange Brew]

The impeachment is about political optics. Would "prove" the left correct about what a bad bad man Trump is.

Or they are idiots with no ideas so we’ll just talk about how mean the old boss was.

[Strange Brew]

Precedent:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...ffice-n1255516

That’s cute. Did the States ratify an Amendment? About that same time that government voted to make some people 3/5ths a person.

I’m sure your state and it’s former battle flag you love were all for it.

[STL_XUfan]

That’s cute. Did the States ratify an Amendment? About that same time that government voted to make some people 3/5ths a person.

I’m sure your state and it’s former battle flag you love were all for it.

What? About that time an amendment was passed to repeal the 3/5th clause, not institute it.

[Strange Brew]

You’re correct. The point was the Congress passes stupid, unconstitutional things so don’t use something from the 19th C. that is as meaningless and unconstitutional now as it was then.

[STL_XUfan]

You’re correct. The point was the Congress passes stupid, unconstitutional things so don’t use something from the 19th C. that is as meaningless and unconstitutional now as it was then.

I mean we are interpreting a couple of sentences from a document from the 18th century that has only been invoked 21 times in some 230 years. So any precedent is at least some guidance on how to interpret those sentences. Frankly I think this will play out the same way, Senate will vote they have the power to hear the case but not get the 2/3rds needed to convict. Regardless I don’t think the Supreme Court touches it with a 10 foot pole, instead finding it is a political question and therefore not justiciable.

[noteggs]

1 million isn't 1.5? Why can't he change it? Hopefully we get 2 million when they up the production. Why argue about an potential increase in getting people well. dumb.

No problem whatsoever to increase to 1.5 or 2 million because that would be great! Point is Biden got called out because we’re already at 1million per day and he got defensive on his plan being so bold. No fake news here and dumb (your words) if he or campaign didn’t know this.

[Strange Brew]

I mean we are interpreting a couple of sentences from a document from the 18th century that has only been invoked 21 times in some 230 years. So any precedent is at least some guidance on how to interpret those sentences. Frankly I think this will play out the same way, Senate will vote they have the power to hear the case but not get the 2/3rds needed to convict. Regardless I don’t think the Supreme Court touches it with a 10 foot pole, instead finding it is a political question and therefore not justiciable.

I agree and you articulated much better than I. It’s an exercise in futility but so is much these days.

[Masterofreality]

I mean we are interpreting a couple of sentences from a document from the 18th century that has only been invoked 21 times in some 230 years. So any precedent is at least some guidance on how to interpret those sentences. Frankly I think this will play out the same way, Senate will vote they have the power to hear the case but not get the 2/3rds needed to convict. Regardless I don’t think the Supreme Court touches it with a 10 foot pole, instead finding it is a political question and therefore not justiciable.

Identical to the Emoluments Clause today. (Shrugs Shoulders)

[Masterofreality]

Precedent:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...ffice-n1255516

Key phrase in the article- “Trying to convict”.
The case was never brought to its logical conclusion. Why? No office holder.
No conclusion. No need for a Supreme Court ruling. Same thing will happen here, if it even gets that far.
As shown when laws passed by the Congress are declared Unconstitutional. The Congress is not the final arbiter.
In this case, you won’t even have an appointed Judge presiding.
Any Body can “try” to do anything. Doesn’t make it Constitutional.
Performative.