UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

NM

There has to be some threat to presidents who misbehave. No, it didn't happen this time, but look at the terrible price the Dems are paying already for having abused their privilege.

A Democrat can just as easily abuse the power of that office, and likely will.

I guess to me, it comes down to time and cost. Generally, although things change all the time, if you can get 60% support in the House, it means that you've got at least some bipartisan support. Then, you know if it's worth it to go through all of the divisive steps to sign off on the Inquiry and send the Articles to the Senate.

In this case, they had essentially zero support from the G.O.P. in the House. And the chance of the Senate supporting the measure to a 2/3 majority was as close to Absolute Zero as is possible. Even if I agreed with the democrats on this issue, I wouldn't have wanted to spend the time and money on it. And that's especially true if you believe the left leadership that Trump is bound to do something sinister......if that is the case, and it's truly something tyrannical, illegal, bad for the country, etc., then you could just wait for that and impeach then, because you'd really have an issue that would garner bipartisan support.

(no message)

This is an extreme act that really should require enough support from both sides to generate removal. Any less than that and I feel like it ignores the will of too many of the voting citizens in the country.

(no message)

(no message)

Curious...what prompted the question?

But seriously, that is not my first constitutional amendment I would propose. The system did work, after all. I lean against it.

1) All House votes are by simple majority. [There is no historical precedent to raise the threshold]

2) Every member of the House serves a two year term. So there is a check 'n balance on their vote as they have to answer in the next election. Generally, only a third of the Senate is up for the next election.

3) Proving removal from office "beyond a reasonable doubt" to 67 Senators is a demanding burden.

There is some merit in Scott's proposal, particularly if the same party held a slight majority in the House (e.g. GOP 220 - Dems 215), but a stronger majority in the Senate (e.g. 62 GOP - 38 Dems). As a Democrat, one may fear pure partisan politics could run a President out of office on a bogus charge, only needing a handful of votes form the other party in the Senate.

But, that scenario assumes everyone acts in bad faith. I do not believe we are anywhere near that point.

If a President's misconduct gets > 50% of the House to impeach him, pretty sure it was warranted. The media is also a force to expose bogus charges.

On your #1, I get that, but it seems to me that an Impeachment vote is something totally different from every other House voting issue. It is, or should be, an extraordinary measure, and I wonder if that would justify an extraordinary threshold.

#2 is a fair point.

I absolutely agree with #3, and that's really kind of why I'm intrigued by Scott's suggestion - why have the circus, and all its costs (financial, time, emotional, political) if you don't have a realistic chance of pushing it through?

Also, just a thought on your last point regarding the media: That should be true, but we've seen media really choose sides in the last 2 decades. At this point, the media biased towards the accused side is going to claim "bogus charges" unless it's something that both sides want to get behind.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

I actually agree and already posted it above.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

The first election I was old enough to vote in was 1996. I voted for Clinton without hesitation. I liked his administration and I liked most of Clintonomics, other than the push to lend to unqualified borrowers simply based on ethnic background. The idea was a good one, but it wasn't properly regulated and was a huge driver of the most recent recession.

In 2012, I voted for Obama over Romney. I wasn't wild about Obama, but I didn't like or trust Romney, and after watching Biden absolutely rout Paul Ryan in the V.P. debate, I didn't feel comfortable with Ryan being involved in policy at such a high level.

Last, while I know this wasn't technically part of your question, I voted for Harold Ford (Jr.) for the House. I lived in Memphis and knew him - I liked him.

voted for 41, fiscally prudent and a Navy flyboy. Same with McCain in Y2K.
Supported McCain early in the '08 cycle when it looked like the Ds were going with Hillary.

First Potus vote I recall was Biden of all people in the '88 primary.

Edit to add reply to your question from above: The strength of country has been weakened by hyper partisanship imo.
The folks who prefer sane discourse are drowned out by the extremists, whether Bernie Bros or Trumpsters.

I always thought later on (I was 12 at the time) that we had better candidates for both sides who didn't win the primary.

(no message)

(no message)

I just thought you should answer first, since you were asked first. One of Jimbasil's favorite tactics is to keep asking questions when he doesn't want to answer, and then he accuses the other person of not wanting to answer. Thought you might be borrowing a tactic.

I'm curious why this is important. I suppose your position is that someone who hasn't voted for the other party in X years can't be non-partisan when analyzing a constitutional amendment proposal? I don't think that is a legitimate position. There are people on this forum with very strong views on both sides of the political divide, who can nonetheless set aside partisanship on important issues.

As for me and my bipartisan credentials, such as they are: I have donated money to only one party, the Libertarian Party. I have donated money to just three candidates for national office, a Democrat, a Republican and an Libertarian...and I donated far more to the Libertarian than I donated to the Democrat and Republican combined. I regularly vote Democrat on criminal law issues/offices (prosecutors/judges) and Republican on fiscal spending positions (legislature/congressional positions). For US senate or POTUS, I have only voted Republican or Libertarian. As a pro-life libertarian, I find it hard to vote for big government pro-abortion candidates, and that is what the Democrats usually offer.

How about you? Any R's on your ballots or donations?

Donated a small amount to 41 and bit more to McCain in Y2K.
Also donated to McCain early in the '08 cycle when it looked like the Ds were going with Hillary.
Supported Arnold against 2 D slugs for Governor, and never voted for Barbara Boxer.
In state and local elections I vote for the best candidate regardless of affiliation, esp since in CA
one party controls, and voting is sometimes an exercise in avoiding left wing extremists.

(no message)

Link: https://twitter.com/joelockhart/status/1225482918144901121

I'd rather the House use a little more restraint, but this would be acceptable too. I really believe that if there were egregious offenses (e.g. Watergate) you would easily clear a 60% threshold.

(no message)