Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impeachment Process - Read OP Before Posting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
    It has been suggested that starting an actual impeachment would also allow the minority in the House to have subpoena power, and that that's why the Dems are refraining. Is this an actual law or rule?
    The minority party in the House used to have subpoena power, but the Republicans changed that when they were in the majority. Now that the Republicans are in the minority they seem to be regretting that change. They probably should have thought more carefully about it before shooting themselves in the foot.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      OK what does all this mean - speak English please...
      It means that Congress makes its own rules of procedure, and they can do so at each convening. According to the Constitution>"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
      Last edited by JimL; 10-12-2019, 07:45 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        It means that Congress makes its own rules of procedure, and they can do so at each convening."Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
        No, Jim, he was asking about the cases. I'm still reading Eastland and won't start on Wilkinson until tomorrow at the earliest.

        Basically, the Supreme Court tries to stay out of political fights, but there is some judicial case law on impeachment in place and the Court has never eliminated the possibility of Judicial Review.

        The more important for the debate is Wilkinson - it's linked above if you want to read it yourself. Also, unless specified in the decision (extremely rare) case law doesn't expire - it stays in place until overturned or legislated away (can be done unless it's a constitutional issue the congress can't get around).
        Last edited by Teallaura; 10-12-2019, 08:02 AM.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
          It means that Congress makes its own rules of procedure, and they can do so at each convening. According to the Constitution>"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
          Within the boundaries of the law, of course, and according to judicial precedent, House committees do not have subpoena authority until authorized by the House, which means holding a vote. So why won't Nancy do it? Democrats have the majority, so even a straight party line vote would be in their favor, and then everything would be official and legally enforceable. So why won't they? What are they afraid of?
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            The minority party in the House used to have subpoena power, but the Republicans changed that when they were in the majority. Now that the Republicans are in the minority they seem to be regretting that change. They probably should have thought more carefully about it before shooting themselves in the foot.
            SL, please stay on topic and on point - this doesn't answer his question - I am pretty sure Wiki is correct but I want to read the case to confirm it.

            I'm also pretty sure this isn't wholly correct - I think you've got it confused with the rule changes - but please don't debate it here.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Within the boundaries of the law, of course, and according to judicial precedent, House committees do not have subpoena authority until authorized by the House, which means holding a vote. So why won't Nancy do it? Democrats have the majority, so even a straight party line vote would be in their favor, and then everything would be official and legally enforceable. So why won't they? What are they afraid of?
              *emphasis mine
              No debating the current impeachment in this thread! Bad MM, bad!!!

              Seriously, this thread is just for discussion and reference about the impeachment process.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                *emphasis mine
                No debating the current impeachment in this thread! Bad MM, bad!!!

                Seriously, this thread is just for discussion and reference about the impeachment process.
                Oops... Sorry. So many threads discussing the same or similar topics that I forgot about the ground rules...
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  No, Jim, he was asking about the cases. I'm still reading Eastland and won't start on Wilkinson until tomorrow at the earliest.

                  Basically, the Supreme Court tries to stay out of political fights, but there is some judicial case law on impeachment in place and the Court has never eliminated the possibility of Judicial Review.

                  The more important for the debate is Wilkinson - it's linked above if you want to read it yourself. Also, unless specified in the decision (extremely rare) case law doesn't expire - it stays in place until overturned or legislated away (can be done unless it's a constitutional issue the congress can't get around).
                  There is no case law that trumps Congressional rules, as Congress determines their own rules of procedure. The courts may have made a previous judgement based on the then existing Congressional rules, but the court has no discretion as to what those rules will be. The House has the sole power of impeachment and "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    There is no case law that trumps Congressional rules, as Congress determines their own rules of procedure. The courts may have made a previous judgement based on the then existing Congressional rules, but the court has no discretion as to what those rules will be. The House has the sole power of impeachment and "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."
                    Their ability to define rules is not unlimited. Case in point, judicial precedent has determined that members of Congress can not arbitrarily grant themselves subpoena authority. It must be approved by a House vote. Otherwise, what's to stop a committee of Republicans from arbitrarily starting an impeachment inquiry and then badgering a Democrat president with subpoenas?
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      There is no case law that trumps Congressional rules, as Congress determines their own rules of procedure. The courts may have made a previous judgement based on the then existing Congressional rules, but the court has no discretion as to what those rules will be. The House has the sole power of impeachment and "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."
                      Jim, the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review - it can and has ruled against Congressional procedures in the past. That is case law and does in fact trump congressional rules - rules that do not have the force of law.

                      You'd literally have to get the Supreme Court to overturn Marbury v Madison to make this work.

                      If you want to debate it, I'm game, but please start another thread. This will get messy and I want this thread to stay boringly neat.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Jim, the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review - it can and has ruled against Congressional procedures in the past. That is case law and does in fact trump congressional rules - rules that do not have the force of law.

                        You'd literally have to get the Supreme Court to overturn Marbury v Madison to make this work.

                        If you want to debate it, I'm game, but please start another thread. This will get messy and I want this thread to stay boringly neat.
                        Well show me the past SCOTUS ruling that overturned a Congressional procedure, or where they ruled that a particular procedure was unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, show me the particular ruling that says Congress must take a floor vote prior to an impeachment inquiry.

                        Not that it would matter anyway, Tea. They could take a vote, and contrary to what you're hearing, it wouldn't change a thing. The majority, in this case the democrats, after voting in the affirmative, would still have control over every aspect of the investigation. This is simply a political move, and a stall, on the part of the guilty party, i.e. Trump and his band of thieves.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Well show me the past SCOTUS ruling that overturned a Congressional procedure, or where they ruled that a particular procedure was unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, show me the particular ruling that says Congress must take a floor vote prior to an impeachment inquiry.
                          I'd really rather do this in another thread - but you've already see both Nixon and Wilkinson.

                          Not that it would matter anyway, Tea. They could take a vote, and contrary to what you're hearing, it wouldn't change a thing. The majority, in this case the democrats, after voting in the affirmative, would still have control over every aspect of the investigation. This is simply a political move, and a stall, on the part of the guilty party, i.e. Trump and his band of thieves.
                          Knock this off - you know the thread rules. Don't debate the impeachment here.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Since this came up, including it here:

                            Source: [B

                            Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974][/B]

                            =Title X: Impoundment Control= - Impoundment Control Act provides that nothing contained in this Act, or in any amnendments made by this Act, shall be construed as: (1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President; (2) ratifying or approving any impoundment heretofore or hereafter executed or approved by the President or any other Federal officer or employee, except insofar as pursuant to statutory authorization then in effect; (3) affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment; or (4) superseding any provision of law which requires the obligation of budget authority or the making of outlays thereunder.
                            Makes technical amendments to the Antideficiency Act. Repeals the existing impoundment reporting provision of the Budget and Accounting Procedure Act of 1950.


                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Jim, the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review - it can and has ruled against Congressional procedures in the past. That is case law and does in fact trump congressional rules - rules that do not have the force of law.

                              You'd literally have to get the Supreme Court to overturn Marbury v Madison to make this work.

                              If you want to debate it, I'm game, but please start another thread. This will get messy and I want this thread to stay boringly neat.
                              Are you sure? It doesn't sound right. Like you said congressional procedures and rules aren't law so how can it be subject to judicial review? And they dont have the power to make anything binding on congress since congress can pass legislation to replace supreme court decisions.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                                Are you sure? It doesn't sound right. Like you said congressional procedures and rules aren't law so how can it be subject to judicial review? And they dont have the power to make anything binding on congress since congress can pass legislation to replace supreme court decisions.
                                Because case law. Welcome to the wild side of American jurisprudence.

                                The Court avoids internal matters in the other branches - but it occasionally does rule on them. This is where executive privilege is established - in cases brought to the Court by the Exec against Congress (Nixon). And earlier we have Wilkinson, which is directly pertinent to the impeachment.

                                The Congress can overwrite Court decisions with law - but only so long as the new law is itself constitutional. This is why Marbury would have to be overturned to make this workable.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 11:25 AM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:24 AM
                                86 responses
                                340 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sam
                                by Sam
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, Today, 07:41 AM
                                25 responses
                                117 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by seer, Today, 04:53 AM
                                15 responses
                                91 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                                35 responses
                                196 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X