• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abuse of power not impeachable? Think again...

annata said:
Kasich is a liberal - Medicade expansion is killing the ability to fund Medicade.Of course the economy is regulated, but Trump took off the over-regulations.

I completely agree we should not be in Syria -Trump tried to get out and was excoriated for it.
Trump wanted a "Russian reset" -but the damn 'deep staters' made sure that wouldn't happen with their false "Russian collusion" crappola, and now we are spending a ****load of money on NATO that need not be.

We are in a Cold War 2.0 - and the other result is Russia is closer then ever to China because of this. They have a unified command structure and war game together as a unified force ( VOSTOK 2018)..

on the other hand both the Dems and Repubs have spent us into an unsurmountable debt. Neither party are adults in the room
Click to expand...

Kasich isn't a liberal.

The over regulations? Like what? Please specifically tell me how we no longer have a regulated economy.
 
annata said:
The text of the Constitution does NOT say anything about abuse of power. It specifically say "crimes" - and gives examples of high crimes
Click to expand...

If you google what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, most sources, from wikipedia to whatever else you find (I am sure this excludes Breitbart and Trump TV) will explain to you that it's unrelated to "crimes" as you present it. The phrase has been used since 1300's consistently through 100s of years, including "abuse of power" articles in recent US history (e.g. Nixon's case was specifically because he refused to comply with Congress request for documents).

So you can pretend all you like, but no, "crime" does NOT have to be committed.

If you really want a detailed answer, I found an article by Professor of Law in response to exact position you are taking. It summarizes it as:

There are two strong arguments against the idea that the phrase requires criminal behavior: a historical one and a practical one. The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Constitution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct. The practical reasoning is in some ways more important: A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.
Click to expand...

You can read all the glory details in that article.
 
Slavister said:
5 pages of responses and so far not a single one found any flaw in the logic of the quoted statement in the OP.
Funny, your above quote just established that "abuse of power" is a crime since it is listed as one of the many crimes on your list. Apparently, according to your list so is "his use of the IRS, FBI and CIA against his perceived enemies".
Nor a single crime is needed. OP explains why.
Typical dumbass reasoning from those who cannot follow a simple logical argument.
Yes, we know you sincerely hope Trump becomes our King for life. You and him share that vision.
The part of the OP to which you are referring states that there is nothing wrong with abuse of power to be a reason to impeach. Both Clinton and Nixon had that article considered and even though Nixon resigned before he would have been impeached and Clinton was found to be innocent of abuse of power, that takes away absolutely nothing from the fact that abuse of power is a valid impeachable offense. A precedent set by 2 out of 3 prior impeachment cases.

Think.
As was stated before, abuse of power does not need to be a crime, let alone a misdemeanor. It just needs to be what was meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution. It's funny how right winger fanatics love to ignore the true meaning of Constitution while pretending they are the defenders of it.
Yes, Alan Dershowitz made a lot of arguments in Clinton days that would directly contradict him today.
The meaning/words are clear to be exactly the opposite of what you want them to mean. Sorry, even if you don't like what that phrase has meant for 100s of years, you do not get to redefine it to your liking now. If you did, impeachment would be quite useless from well... abuse of power... with some nice examples listed in the OP.
Click to expand...


Wicked communist ploy to undermine America:

1. Falsely accuse Trump of a misdemeanor.
2. Use the mainstream media tom turn the false allegation of a misdemeanor into a presumption of guilt of a felony.
3. Have communist sympathizers in the mainstream propagandist media urge Americans to support his removal from office.
4. Manipulate the ensuing chaos to end up with a communist sympathizer taking Trump's place.
5. Cackle with glee all the way to the bank.
 
Slavister said:
If you google what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, most sources, from wikipedia to whatever else you find (I am sure this excludes Breitbart and Trump TV) will explain to you that it's unrelated to "crimes" as you present it. The phrase has been used since 1300's consistently through 100s of years, including "abuse of power" articles in recent US history (e.g. Nixon's case was specifically because he refused to comply with Congress request for documents).

So you can pretend all you like, but no, "crime" does NOT have to be committed.

If you really want a detailed answer, I found an article by Professor of Law in response to exact position you are taking. It summarizes it as:



You can read all the glory details in that article.
Click to expand...
lol..this is why I'm a YUGE fan of Scalia's "textualism".
Instead of trying to find original meanings/intent we have the PLAIN 4 CORNERS OF THE TEXT
Four corners (law) - Wikipedia
^( case law section is the relevant part)

debating what was meant, or what was tradition falls flat when we have the text to rely upon.
~~
( Plus it's very satisfactory from a Buddhist p.o.v. -where we are instructed by Buddha to not listen to others, but rely upon our own experiences)
So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."
 
tres borrachos said:
Nice talking to you too annata (and Happy New Year). But I asked you for specific examples, not links to someone else's words.
Click to expand...
many are rollbacks of Obama's /there was the simplification of generic drug approval,and getting rid of feather bedding by
railroad cariers ( 2 crews in a car).

There are so many of them..by themselves they don't look like much,
but they have benefits not directly seen.

Tax simplification is another one. I'm a white collar independent contractor
( i sell stuff you see on TV infomercials)
I run my own business from home -not an employee.

Up to last year I had to look for deductions ,save every receipt,and try to get more deductions then just taking the standard deduction.
Tax reform DOUBLED the standard deduction -which helps all small proprietary businesses.

There are so many as i said;but the cumulative effect is to reduce aperwork/lawyers/and regs costs
 
annata said:
many are rollbacks of Obama's /there was the simplification of generic drug approval,and getting rid of feather bedding by
railroad cariers ( 2 crews in a car).

There are so many of them..by themselves they don't look like much,
but they have benefits not directly seen.

Tax simplification is another one. I'm a white collar independent contractor
( i sell stuff you see on TV infomercials)
I run my own business from home -not an employee.

Up to last year I had to look for deductions ,save every receipt,and try to get more deductions then just taking the standard deduction.
Tax reform DOUBLED the standard deduction -which helps all small proprietary businesses.

There are so many as i said;but the cumulative effect is to reduce aperwork/lawyers/and regs costs
Click to expand...

Thanks for the example of the feather bedding in the railroad carriers. How much did rolling back Obama's regulation about railroad cars add back into the economy specifically?

Tax simplification is a process. It wasn't an Obama era-regulation. Interesting though that you see it as a benefit when you said you work at home. So do I. So does my husband. The lacks of deductions in the simplification process actually hurt us and not help us. How did they help you? It didn't double our deduction rate. With all due respect, you must not have been deducting much at all from your home office space. Yes, you don't have to save receipts. Is that why it's better now - because you don't have to work as hard?
 
annata said:
lol..this is why I'm a YUGE fan of Scalia's "textualism".
Instead of trying to find original meanings/intent we have the PLAIN 4 CORNERS OF THE TEXT
Four corners (law) - Wikipedia
^( case law section is the relevant part)

debating what was meant, or what was tradition falls flat when we have the text to rely upon.
~~
( Plus it's very satisfactory from a Buddhist p.o.v. -where we are instructed by Buddha to not listen to others, but rely upon our own experiences)
So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."
Click to expand...

"textualism" does not save you because the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is meaningless today outside of what I presented. There is no such thing as "high crimes" vs "low crimes" other than you coming up with your own interpretation. It's the same thing as if I said "high actions" or "low actions". There is no such thing unless you know what this means, if anything at all.

And since you are harping on "textualism", let me give this snippet from the Constitution

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
...
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Click to expand...

The way you read Constitution then, only males are allowed to be in Congress, correct?

So, all the women have no place there, right?
 
Last edited:
annata said:
lol..this is why I'm a YUGE fan of Scalia's "textualism".
Instead of trying to find original meanings/intent we have the PLAIN 4 CORNERS OF THE TEXT
Four corners (law) - Wikipedia
^( case law section is the relevant part)

debating what was meant, or what was tradition falls flat when we have the text to rely upon.
~~
( Plus it's very satisfactory from a Buddhist p.o.v. -where we are instructed by Buddha to not listen to others, but rely upon our own experiences)
So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."
Click to expand...

Lulz. You must also be a fan, then, of the fact that he was only a 'textualist' when it was convenient for him and he was a wholly dishonest and political creature.

To say nothing of the fact that at the time of the writing of the constitution, there were no federal crimes.
 
tres borrachos said:
Thanks for the example of the feather bedding in the railroad carriers. How much did rolling back Obama's regulation about railroad cars add back into the economy specifically?

Tax simplification is a process. It wasn't an Obama era-regulation. Interesting though that you see it as a benefit when you said you work at home. So do I. So does my husband. The lacks of deductions in the simplification process actually hurt us and not help us. How did they help you? It didn't double our deduction rate. With all due respect, you must not have been deducting much at all from your home office space. Yes, you don't have to save receipts. Is that why it's better now - because you don't have to work as hard?
Click to expand...
the lack of deductions along with doubling of the standard deduction means I don't have to worry about taxes. My home office is basic ( I answer infomercial phone calls ) so it's just phones/headhones and the computer and part of my telecommunications bill.

I mentioned none of this stuff is blockbuster own it's own - it's the combination and overall business climate
that has been effected.

Man you must REALLY hate Trump!
Since I depend on consumer sales -a red hot consumer economy means I made more money under Trump
then Obama by far. People see stuff on TV and buy, and buy the upsells too! I get commissioned sales. more for me too.

Wages are up / and lower percentile wages got more then upper /unemployment at record lows /GDP was never under 2% under Trump ( unlike Obama)
Obama got low paying jobs back, but lost 200k manufacturing jobs. Trump is getting high paying jobs created.

My 401k is swelling/ inflation is low -I'm 65 years old and have never seen our economy this good-
even better then Reagan's

I f you want more info on de-reg.i suggest you clik on the links provided for details
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Lulz. You must also be a fan, then, of the fact that he was only a 'textualist' when it was convenient for him and he was a wholly dishonest and political creature.

To say nothing of the fact that at the time of the writing of the constitution, there were no federal crimes.
Click to expand...
you should cite.
But textualism cannot be under-estimated ( and is why the dems impeachment is trash).
No guessing about original intent -no horsehockey like "living document". it is what it is
 
Slavister said:
"textualism" does not save you because the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is meaningless today outside of what I presented. There is no such thing as "high crimes" vs "low crimes" other than you coming up with your own interpretation. It's the same thing as if I said "high actions" or "low actions". There is no such thing unless you know what this means, if anything at all.

And since you are harping on "textualism", let me give this snippet from the Constitution



The way you read Constitution then, only males are allowed to be in Congress, correct?

So, all the women have no place there, right?
Click to expand...
oh please with the pronouns. an inane point.
PC garbage is wiping out pronouns anyways if those loonies ever get to destroy our rich language.

Constitution gives examples as well -serious violations of Office that are also crimes.

Dems trash talked "bribery /extortion"during impeachment -but are not in the Articles.
Because there is nothing there
 
annata said:
you should cite.
But textualism cannot be under-estimated ( and is why the dems impeachment is trash).
No guessing about original intent -no horsehockey like "living document". it is what it is
Click to expand...

Why would I? People who cite Scalia and who pretend to be Buddhists wouldn't care.

Thus endeth the lesson.
 
Who says abuse of power is not impeachable? If you can get 50%+1 of the House and 2/3rds of the senate to agree, then anything is impeachable.

I think Dershowitz et al are arguing only that a charge of "abuse of power" is too ill-defined a high crime and/or misdemeanor to justify impeachment. Literally any action undertaken by the president can be called "abuse of power", including say pardoning some random turkey just before Thanksgiving.
 
eman623 said:
Who says abuse of power is not impeachable? If you can get 50%+1 of the House and 2/3rds of the senate to agree, then anything is impeachable.
Click to expand...

Which places political conditions on “Separation of Powers”. As you described, the character of the US will have forever changed.

So the next time this is tried SCOTUS is going to have to step in on procedural arguments.
 
JackA said:
Abuse of power, depending on the seriousness of the abuse, can be the worst offense a President commits. When Franklin said, "You have a republic if you can keep it," abuse of power by which a President elevates himself in a way that threatens our democratic institutions is what he meant. In this context, Clinton's sex perjury was meaningless. Trump's blocking an act of Congress in an attempt to coerce a foreign government into scandalizing a rival in the next election fits right in.
Click to expand...
Hilarious, Congress has never blocked anything have they? Like maybe funding for a fence in support of existing immigration law. You're ****ing funny, you know that? They interfered with his duty to carry out immigration laws. I'm sure we could go on easily.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.
 
annata said:
oh please with the pronouns. an inane point.
PC garbage is wiping out pronouns anyways if those loonies ever get to destroy our rich language.

Constitution gives examples as well -serious violations of Office that are also crimes.

Dems trash talked "bribery /extortion"during impeachment -but are not in the Articles.
Because there is nothing there
Click to expand...

Oh I see, you only want "textualism" when it suits you. Constitution is in black and white text and it clearly says "he". You are the one who wants to follow it precisely and not try to interpret it in any other way, but hey, it's not to your liking here.

Just because 2 examples fall into crime category of today does not mean that all other things must (and in fact we know they do not). Just because all giraffes are animals, does not mean that all animals are giraffes.

You pretend like you know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means even though you clearly do not. It would be the same as if it said "... when high stakes are involved" and you would be saying Trump can do it because his conduct had nothing to do with "stakes" (disregarding his failed Trump stakes company).
 
American said:
Hilarious, Congress has never blocked anything have they? Like maybe funding for a fence in support of existing immigration law. You're ****ing funny, you know that? They interfered with his duty to carry out immigration laws. I'm sure we could go on easily.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you could go on "easily" but you've shown you could go on idiotically.
 
annata said:
oh please with the pronouns. an inane point.
PC garbage is wiping out pronouns anyways if those loonies ever get to destroy our rich language.

Constitution gives examples as well -serious violations of Office that are also crimes.

Dems trash talked "bribery /extortion"during impeachment -but are not in the Articles.
Because there is nothing there
Click to expand...

My main reply is in post #94, but here is another random fun example for you:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Click to expand...

I guess we are using wrong formula - today, all prisoners are clearly not "free" and therefore should be counted as 3/5th, according to your understanding of "textualism" nonsense.
 
chuckiechan said:
Which places political conditions on “Separation of Powers”. As you described, the character of the US will have forever changed.

So the next time this is tried SCOTUS is going to have to step in on procedural arguments.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the significant separation of powers issue that would stem from any attempt by the SCOTUS to dictate the terms of powers reserved exclusively to the Congress, I don't think it's likely that impeachment will become normalized by this, if for no other reason that it's a risky strategy that makes the target stronger when it fails.

There's an old saying, "If you shoot at the king, you better not miss!" This impeachment will be remembered as a missed shot fired by an amateur shooter with a faulty gun that jammed.
 
Slavister said:
Aside from abuse of power being an article of impeachment for both of last 2 impeachment processes, I think Schiff said it best in response this latest ridiculous Republican position...
Click to expand...

You mean that Schiff guy who has proof positive of Collusion between Trump and Russia? Where is that proof? Why hasn't Schiff presented it? Because he is a low life liar.
 
eman623 said:
Who says abuse of power is not impeachable? If you can get 50%+1 of the House and 2/3rds of the senate to agree, then anything is impeachable.

I think Dershowitz et al are arguing only that a charge of "abuse of power" is too ill-defined a high crime and/or misdemeanor to justify impeachment. Literally any action undertaken by the president can be called "abuse of power", including say pardoning some random turkey just before Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

There is no actual crime as defined by legal statute contained within the articles of impeachment. As usual it is about the democrats "feelings" not any crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom