Impeachment Process - Read OP Before Posting

[Starlight]

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.

[JimL]

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".

[Teallaura]

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).

[Mountain Man]

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?

[Teallaura]

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.

[Teallaura]

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.

[Mountain Man]

*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...

[JimL]

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."

[Mountain Man]

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?

[Teallaura]

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.

[JimL]

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.

[Teallaura]

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.

[Teallaura]

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

[Watermelon]

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.

[Teallaura]

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.