Impeachment (Split from: Is this war with Iran?)

[Conjurer]

On 1/4/2020 at 3:32 PM, iNow said:

He’s already been impeached and it’s no longer possible for it to be overturned. Perhaps what you meant to refer to is how Senate will vote when it comes to deciding whether or not to remove him from office as a result of that impeachment. Or, you may rightly be expressing how war with Iran would move the public attention away from impeachment. 

The process that I learned when I took government about a president that was accused of abuse of power is similar to what is happening now.  There is supposed to be an article that prevents impeachment if we are in a state of emergency, so the act of impeachment cannot infringe on the protection of the US.  The only card the house has against the senate and presidency if they both are seen to be corrupt is to hold the articles until they comply.  It can potentially shut down the government if they hold on to them while not allowing any other bills to go through the house.  Then the other branches have to comply if they wish to pass anything through the house.  (It could be seen that this is a strategy the senate is already using by holding over 400 bills sent from the house)  

The problem is that the senate and the presidency is republican, and the house is democratic.  The government isn't getting anything done anyways, because they don't want to have changes made by the democratic house.  The only way to get around the three branches not ever working together would be for the presidency to declare a military state during a state of national emergency.  Then the government would change into a dictatorship or a republic with the backing of the senate.  We are technically in a republic instead of a democracy, because the rest of the government just doesn't care what the democratic majority in the house is doing anyways.

From what I have heard, that is the only way the constitution allows to resolve these kinds of problems in the government.  That is for Trump to become our evil dictator, or form a republic with Mitch McConnell.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Conjurer

[iNow]

Again, he’s already been impeached. That’s done. The conversation now ya about removal. A military engagement AFAIK can not prevent that. 

If you’re referring to Trump declaring a national emergency and gaining more powers, congress can vote to terminate that. It’s not a magic card he can play without limit in the way you seem to suggest. 

[Conjurer]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, he’s already been impeached. That’s done. The conversation now ya about removal. A military engagement AFAIK can not prevent that. 

The declaration of a military state of emergency prevents court orders, so then he wouldn't have to follow a court order or trail by the senate.  That could prevent his removal from office.  Like Trump said, the impeachment isn't really an impeachment, and it is more like impeachment light, because it doesn't change his job duties or remove him from office without the bills being sent to the senate.  Then they are not being sent, because they believe the senate would just reject them.  So, he is not going through the impeachment process even though he is impeached.  If they are never sent, he technically will never be impeached or go through the impeachment process.  

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The only way to get around the three branches not ever working together would be for the presidency to declare a military state during a state of national emergency.  Then the government would change into a dictatorship or a republic with the backing of the senate.

Um, citation?

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The declaration of a military state of emergency prevents court orders,

Gotta ask. Citation?

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

If they are never sent, he technically will never be impeached

Do you think you could provide... Never mind.

[Conjurer]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Um, citation?

The constitution doesn't state any method or requirement for one branch of the government to send articles or bills to another, so it is the absence of that information in the constitution.  The declaration of a military state during a national emergency gives full control of everything to the executive branch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Edited January 13, 2020 by Conjurer

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

If they are never sent, he technically will never be impeached or go through the impeachment process.

Repeating a false claim won’t make it true. He’s already been impeached. The question now is whether he’ll be removed from office. Unsure why this is so hard for you to grasp. I’ve corrected you about 4x already but you persist in making the same mistake. 

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The declaration of a military state during a national emergency give full control of everything to the executive branch.

Unless congress votes to overturn it, as I already clarified for you in my previous post 

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Repeating a false claim won’t make it true. He’s already been impeached. The question now is whether he’ll be removed from office. Unsure why this is so hard for you to grasp. I’ve corrected you about 4x already but you persist in making the same mistake. 

Your fired!  I just fired you and you have no job, because I just gave you the viper.  I won't tell your boss, and it will be up to him for when you should pack up your things at work to leave.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unless congress votes to overturn it, as I already clarified for you in my previous post 

No, that is completely up to the president to decide.  Congress doesn't have to get involved with states of emergency, because the democratic process takes too long.  It is treated as such, an emergency.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

 

[iNow]

Just now, Conjurer said:

Your fired! 

*you're

[Conjurer]

Just now, iNow said:

*you're

Grammar Natzi.. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

that is completely up to the president to decide.

Nope

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-congress-block-trumps-emergency-declaration/

Quote

Congress can take up a resolution to end a presidential national emergency declaration. If such a resolution passes in one chamber, the other must bring it up for a vote within 18 days. If the resolution passes both chambers and the president vetoes it, a two-thirds majority in Congress can override that veto.

 

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The constitution doesn't state any method or requirement for one branch of the government to send articles or bills to another, so it is the absence of that information in the constitution.  The declaration of a military state during a national emergency gives full control of everything to the executive branch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

No. Your reading of the laws is, um, creative. Common sense alone should tell you there is no provision anywhere to convert to dictatorship. But if that is not enough:

Congress can rescind a state of emergency.

Quote

A joint resolution passed by both chambers requires presidential signature, giving the president veto power over the termination (requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses in the case of a contested termination)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

[Huckleberry of Yore]

Whenever I read about farfetched (hopefully) Constitutional crises, I'm reminded that few seem to understand that the ultimate power of the USA republic lies ultimately not in the 3 branches but rather in a supermajority of the state legislatures.  Not a lawyer, but as I understand such a body trumps all others.  (No pun intended.)

[Conjurer]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-congress-block-trumps-emergency-declaration/

 

What?  That didn't even happen, and it is dated in Feb, 2019!  It resulted in a government shutdown to prevent actions being taken against him to impeach him previously.  The shutdown over the wall prevented them from working on him being impeached once already.  

They were going to have an investigation on rather he was working with the Russians to rig his election, but the investigation was halted because of the government shutdown he created while he fired everyone involved with looking into it.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

What?  That didn't even happen

What didn't happen? I was rebutting your absurd claim that our presidents can become dictators merely by declaring national emergency. I used that source to remind you that those declarations can, in fact, be overturned by congress even though you keep saying they cannot.

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

What didn't happen? I was rebutting your absurd claim that our presidents can become dictators merely by declaring national emergency. I used that source to remind you that those declarations can, in fact, be overturned by congress even though you keep saying they cannot.

But at what point will the Republican-controlled Senate or Supreme court turn on him? It seems they can overrule everything.

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

What didn't happen? I was rebutting your absurd claim that our presidents can become dictators merely by declaring national emergency. I used that source to remind you that those declarations can, in fact, be overturned by congress even though you keep saying they cannot.

You are twisting my words.  It is up to him to declare it, they don't need his authorization to declare it to begin with.

I never heard that he already declared a state of national emergency.  It sounds like fake news.  He just pushed building the wall, and he stopped everything going to the other branches of the government from the executive branch until they passed a bill on the wall.  It resulted in a government shutdown.  This has become a common practice in the government.  It seems like you should know about this strategy by now if you even pay attention to the news.

The shutdown, shutdown his investigation on colluding with Russia on rigging the election process.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

at what point will the Republican-controlled Senate or Supreme court turn on him? It seems they can overrule everything.

Indeed. The politics may not result in any changes, but the process at least allows for it... and that's the point.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I never heard that he already declared a state of national emergency.  It sounds like fake news. 

What is wrong with people like you? 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You are twisting my words.  It is up to him to declare it, they don't need his authorization to declare it to begin with.

In which case, the word twisting is coming from you since I never said nor implied otherwise. 

Just now, zapatos said:

What is wrong with people like you? 

How much time do you have? 

[Conjurer]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is wrong with people like you? 

You have trouble interpreting mannerisms from plain text.  Your mindset interprets everything I say with the same type of mannerisms implied to other users you have chatted with here previously.  Then it becomes irritating to blatantly see you attack users with these false pretenses.

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No. Your reading of the laws is, um, creative. Common sense alone should tell you there is no provision anywhere to convert to dictatorship. But if that is not enough:

Congress can rescind a state of emergency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

I was exaggerating as sort of a joke.  Common sense should have allowed you to see that for a cheap laugh.  

Edited January 13, 2020 by Conjurer

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You have trouble interpreting mannerisms from plain text.  Your mindset interprets everything I say with the same type of mannerisms implied to other users you have chatted with here previously.  Then it becomes irritating to blatantly see you attack users with these false pretenses.

I was exaggerating as sort of a joke.  Common sense should have allowed you to see that for a cheap laugh.  

So in other words, I am foolish for taking your words at face value and believing you are being sincere. There is a name for people who simply say things to get a reaction out of others.

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So in other words, I am foolish for taking your words at face value and believing you are being sincere. There is a name for people who simply say things to get a reaction out of others.

Feynman-like?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

But at what point will the Republican-controlled Senate or Supreme court turn on him? It seems they can overrule everything.

It really didn't look like Mitch McConnell was happy about his decision to eliminate the Iranian general.  It seemed like it made him frustrated that they didn't send them over already, and then they did start on how his trial should go after that. 

1 hour ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:

Whenever I read about farfetched (hopefully) Constitutional crises, I'm reminded that few seem to understand that the ultimate power of the USA republic lies ultimately not in the 3 branches but rather in a supermajority of the state legislatures.  Not a lawyer, but as I understand such a body trumps all others.  (No pun intended.)

The highest degree of power in the government is the presidency.  It is difficult to tell if Trump could actually bring himself to try to take over the government as an evil dictator, and since that is difficult to determine, it may have actually been a bad joke...   It just worries me that if we had a future president that was truly evil, not just by incompetence, whom could take advantage of such a situation and bring the US into a war that could undeniably create a state of national emergency, which would require us to convert to a military state via martial law in order to prevent impeachment in a war that we could potentially lose.

The house is the only branch with the powers of impeachment, and their only response to total corruption is doing nothing, while the president can do whatever type of business he pleases.  I think that, if there is anything good that could come out of this, is seeing the situation for what it really is and doing something to prevent it from potentially happening again sometime in the future, where it could have far worse consequences and repercussions. 

I don't think it is doing anyone any good as just brushing it off as a ridiculous situation that could never happen.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Conjurer

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

I don't think it is doing anyone any good as just brushing it off as a ridiculous situation that could never happen.

Has anyone actually suggested this?

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The declaration of a military state of emergency prevents court orders, so then he wouldn't have to follow a court order or trail by the senate.  

What specific part of the constitution, or federal law (as applied to impeachment), specifies this?

15 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The constitution doesn't state any method or requirement for one branch of the government to send articles or bills to another, so it is the absence of that information in the constitution.  The declaration of a military state during a national emergency gives full control of everything to the executive branch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

That's not what this says (nor does the linked article on martial law in the US. From that link:)

'Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."'

Pretty specific that a rebellion or invasion must occur in order to suspend Habeas Corpus. And that's not the same as "full control of everything"

14 hours ago, Conjurer said:

You are twisting my words.  It is up to him to declare it, they don't need his authorization to declare it to begin with.

You said "full control of everything to the executive branch." which is not backed up by your links.

When people tell  you you're wrong about something, it's disingenuous to point to some other thing and claim you were right, and that your words are being twisted.

 

 

 

[Conjurer]

On 1/14/2020 at 4:28 AM, swansont said:

What specific part of the constitution, or federal law (as applied to impeachment), specifies this?

If they are in a state of martial law, the other parts of the government are shut down, and people are only tried by a military court.  It is more of a cause and effect type of thing.  The law isn't going to state what happens after the law no longer applies anymore, because no one would be following it anyways.  At this point, it doesn't matter what the law or constitution says, because it is a method of getting rid of it.  It would just no longer apply, but it could be in accordance with international law.