Thread: OT - US Constitution, Article II, Section 4

Article II, Section 4 reads as follows: Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

It kinda works like this: "The impeachment process plays out in Congress and requires critical votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is often said that the “House impeaches and the Senate convicts,” or not. In essence, the House first decides if there are grounds to impeach the president, and if it does, the Senate holds a formal impeachment trial.

In the House of Representatives


The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate


The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Impeachable Offenses


Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to constitutional lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:


Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."

So I propose we start a betting pool.

1) When will it happen?

2) Which grounds will it be based upon?

Proceeds to go to: https://support.woundedwarriorprojec...rity&&Pr7K03Ml

I'll open the pool with an initial bet of one dollar: date, before 12.31.2018; grounds, subordinating national interests to personal profits.

I give this thread 'til morning to be locked. That said, I'm horrified that we're in this situation, with a President-elect who gleefully accepted external influence from Russia to be elected, and with the Democrats for being so tone-deaf as to insist their candidate had to be Hillary Clinton. I've got nothing against her, but didn't like the idea that she was "owed" the candidacy, or that they could run a campaign that ignored the working middle class.

Incredibly stupid from a person who's supposed to be so intelligent.

I will make a bet ,they are gonna regret
cause he is the worse there ever was.
happy holidays folks
Gw

I'll plead ignorance and ask if US Constitution, Article II, Section 4 has ever been applied and if so when and what was the outcome?

Got a feeling that if your politicians were treated like everyone else when they broke the law you'd be hard pushed to form a government.

Ever since Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick I've never believed the law was the same for all. OJ Simpson was the same. With the right connections you can litterally get away with murder.

Jeez did I just bash both sides?

Why can't you guys give the guy a chance, how can he be any worse than the last 8 years?

Because nobody else would ever say or do the things he's doing and be expected to get away with it. Choosing the people he does.. with a straight face.
It's like taunting a bull with a red cape.. what he's/they're doing.

There's a reason why people are so up in arms... he didn't run a respectable campaign, so he doesn't get any respect in return. He buffaloed his way through the campaign, and his boosters cheered him at every gaffe and taunt and lie. She took the high road, and suffered for it.

He talked trash, she didn't.. she suffered for it. You'd have thought that the things he did and said would have reflected bad on him.. it didn't.
She would have been pilloried for doing ANY of the stuff he did, and she was the worse for wear because of it.

So NOW, it's "give the guy a chance"? This is akin to a straight "A" student running for class president against the school bully... the bully beats up anyone who is against him, everyone is shy and timid and afraid to talk up against him.. and when he naturally wins... the Stockholm Syndrome takes affect and "well, let's give him a chance"...

Originally Posted by moonlight machine

Why can't you guys give the guy a chance, how can he be any worse than the last 8 years?

Originally Posted by JoeE.

Because nobody else would ever say or do the things he's doing and be expected to get away with it. Choosing the people he does.. with a straight face.
It's like taunting a bull with a red cape.. what he's/they're doing.

There's a reason why people are so up in arms... he didn't run a respectable campaign, so he doesn't get any respect in return. He buffaloed his way through the campaign, and his boosters cheered him at every gaffe and taunt and lie. She took the high road, and suffered for it.

He talked trash, she didn't.. she suffered for it. You'd have thought that the things he did and said would have reflected bad on him.. it didn't.
She would have been pilloried for doing ANY of the stuff he did, and she was the worse for wear because of it.

So NOW, it's "give the guy a chance"? This is akin to a straight "A" student running for class president against the school bully... the bully beats up anyone who is against him, everyone is shy and timid and afraid to talk up against him.. and when he naturally wins... the Stockholm Syndrome takes affect and "well, let's give him a chance"...

One more low information voter spouting off. You dems lost for one reason, they fixed the nomination for hillary. Just about anybody else would have beat trump. As usual she has blamed everyone else for the loss, she needs to look in the mirror to find out why the worst candidate the repub's ever nominated beat her

Something that strikes me about Trump is that since he has never held any public office, he seems woefully ignorant of the actual powers of the president and the speed at which things can be done. His promises for his first 100 days are flat out hilarious.

I do find it ironic that all the democrats were so sure Hilary would win that they were already planning a defense for Hilary's impeachment. Now the shoe has been put entirely on the other foot.

I find it hard to imagine that Trump will be able to go 4 whole years without some kind of conflict of interest scandal or blabbing some kind of confidential information. The guy cannot keep his mouth shut.

All that said, I think it's a massive waste of time to impeach a president. Look at all the time we wasted with Clinton. And for what? Public shaming? He's married to Hilary, can anyone blame him? If the people are not happy with the president, he can step down or be voted out at the next election. 4 years is not that long.

Originally Posted by SND

How many Million votes did Hillary not really get? I'm betting quite a lot.

What's your agenda SND? You sure are passionately against American Democrats as of late. I didn't know Rush Limbaugh was so big in Canada.

Originally Posted by moonlight machine

Why can't you guys give the guy a chance, how can he be any worse than the last 8 years?

You mean you want Trump to be given the same chance as you gave Obama?

how can he be any worse than the last 8 years?

Any worse than the last 8 years? You must have forgot the state of this country 8 years ago when Obama took office. That's okay, you probably only entertain whatever 'news' stories fit your narrative. The country has moved out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. If you think it couldn't be worse you're kidding yourself. Look up Japan's stagflation...they're still feeling the effects over twenty years later.

the Democrats did not claim Trump didn't get the votes he did.
also didn't demand recalls
or say there was voter fraud.

Originally Posted by SND

Just telling it like it is.

At least be honest and unbiased. You're telling it as YOU see it.

Nothing wrong with that - as long as you know that is what you are doing.

i cannot believe the 'working man', the major representative in these forums, would have anything nice to say about a president who hasn't shown much love towards the preservation of said man's livelihood. no one could be any worse in that regard, including trump. at the very least, he has shown to give a f*ck about the working man since he simply picked up the telephone and tried to influence an american manufacturer to not send jobs to mexico. strangely enough, i cannot recall obama doing anything similar. in fact, obama has mentioned that those jobs lost to other countries were "not coming back".

and what's with all this whining about russian influence on the election in trump's favor? since when does influence equal truth? leaked emails were simply evidence of the true underlying workings of the very flawed and deeply disturbing democratic party.

oh, and what about obama's campaign team that descended upon israel in its quest to influence and undermine netanyahu's re-election? democratic liberals have very selective memories i would say.

Originally Posted by SND

Just telling it like it is. It's always been the liberals agenda, in the US and in Canada. (Some of the same people who ran Obama's election were also running canana's last liberal election, and a lot of the same tactics worked) You can't be against some voter qualification, then say there was voter fraud by the other side when you don't get your way, when you're against all measures that should hopefully help reduce or eliminate voter fraud in the first place, because those are the votes the liberals want/need.

Don't worry, I'm no fan of Canadian Liberals and NDP's(commies) either(heck even our conservative parties are turning largely liberal/commie, I might not even be able to vote for them next election), same mess and the liberals and NDP are wrecking this country(and individual provinces) as fast as they can and its awesome, sooner we go bankrupt sooner we can start to rebuild, not much point arguing against their agenda now, kinda encouraging it really but still fun to poke at their BS fantasies once in a while.

But its ok for democrats to say Trump didn't get all those votes, demand recalls and claim the Republicans committed voter fraud right?

In Canada the liberals are currently working on changing our electoral system, they concocted a fake survey that they can manipulate to get the result/conclusion they desire, and the plan largely seems to be to ensure they will keep on winning the next elections no matter what, cause that's democracy I guess.

Wonder what happened to make you that one-eyed and bitter? When you start looking at who gives "likes" to a post like yours the alarm bells should start ringing.

Never seen such a bunch of cry babyies, yo comrades, get over it.

wait...did someone just advocate for a sitting President to use their power to directly influence a private corporation??

The dissonance of the right-wingers here waving the Russian flag is making my head hurt...

[OK, I recognize that currently Russia isn't Communist, it's a Fascist regime. But the reflexive-Right toadying to them doesn't make me feel better]

Originally Posted by MJR7

snip/he simply picked up the telephone and tried to influence an american manufacturer to not send jobs to mexico. strangely enough, i cannot recall obama doing anything similar./snip

Methinks they did and you, Scottl, gave a it a like.

Originally Posted by MJR7

i cannot believe the 'working man', the major representative in these forums, would have anything nice to say about a president who hasn't shown much love towards the preservation of said man's livelihood. no one could be any worse in that regard, including trump. at the very least, he has shown to give a f*ck about the working man since he simply picked up the telephone and tried to influence an american manufacturer to not send jobs to mexico. strangely enough, i cannot recall obama doing anything similar. in fact, obama has mentioned that those jobs lost to other countries were "not coming back".

and what's with all this whining about russian influence on the election in trump's favor? since when does influence equal truth? leaked emails were simply evidence of the true underlying workings of the very flawed and deeply disturbing democratic party.

oh, and what about obama's campaign team that descended upon israel in its quest to influence and undermine netanyahu's re-election? democratic liberals have very selective memories i would say.

A lot of the manufacturing jobs have and will continue to be lost to technological advances and automation along with our country's addiction to cheap crap. Salvaging a few jobs at the carrier plant isn't a negative but it's a band aid that accomplishes what in the big picture? Those jobs were secured by tax incentives to offset the savings the company would have generated by moving jobs to Mexico. Who pays for those tax incentives? United technologies, which owns carrier, generates billions in revenue through government contracts, do they seriously need a tax incentive to keep jobs here?...of course not, but it's a capitalist society and profits dictate job growth and cuts. I don't see the issue with being upfront and candid that many of these jobs aren't coming back. I hope trump does shake up the system and is able to secure more jobs and I don't have a problem with tax incentives to accomplish that. You, like many on both sides, seem pretty hell bent on simply calling out one party when the balance of power swings like a pendulum every two to four years. Massive corporate entities run this country, not politicians, yet no one wants to call out the corporations that have profit margins in the billions and no problems cutting jobs or offshoring to increase their coffers.