Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

Their is a question of which power prevails in a dispute and that has to be settled by SCOTUS before it becomes an impeachable offense. We didn't do that because the President would have won.

 

Just proves what a complete sham, this really is. The real issue is abuse of power by the Democrats in the House. I firmly believe some of them should be arrested and tried for treason.

 

I just wanted to give you credit for making the first coherent argument I've seen from a Trumper in................forever.

However, the obstruction charge is based on established SC precedent from both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. That said, I am concerned the far right wing ideologues on the bench will once again violate precedent and turn the founder's intent on its head in order to impose their radical belief in the imperial, unaccountable executive on the country.

 

Both of which are predicated on the subpoenas in question being legal, as determined by a court.
That determination has not been made, and thus, the article rests on facts not in evidence.

 

That could never happen a properly left biased Court.

 

no it doesn’t.

No he wouldn’t have.

 

There is absolutely nothing about the requests for documents and witness testimony in the current inquiry to distinguish them from those of the past. The only difference is Trump's unprecedented attempt to expand the scope of EP beyond anything a prez has done before. In Nixon's case the court ruled it was in the public's interest to have the tapes handed over because they were an important part of the inquiry. So too is the testimony of Bolton, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc.

 

Fact remains - the subpoenas are not legal until ruled as such by a court; the house declaring them legal means no more than the Executive declaring them illegal.

That determination has not been made, and thus, the article rests on facts not in evidence.

 

Article 1, Section II.

 

Your argument is like saying because Trump has made the ridiculous claim as prez he can not be investigated or charged with a crime, we have to wait for the court to rule on his guilt should he shoot someone on 5th Ave in front of 100 witnesses.

As all the lower courts have ruled, his absurd contention he doesn't have to comply with Congress' requests for info is completely without merit or legal standing. It's a delay tactic, nothing more.

 

Subpoenas are legal unless otherwise ruled by the courts. There is no requirement for the court to first rule it’s legal. So, the facts are in evidence. As subpoenas are legal unless otherwise ruled illegal.

 

The facts are exactly the opposite. A subpoena is legal upon issuance, unless otherwise ruled illegal.

 

This is not in any way the case.
The house cannot decide that a subpoena is legal - only a court can.
A President has no obligation to follow a subpoena until it is ruled legal and his claim of EP is quashed.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

Legal fact of reality.

 

Yes it does
yes he would have

 

No it doesn’t. No he wouldn’t have.

 

Where in the world did you get this absurd idea that either of those implies that the branches of government don't get along with each other?

 

It does create adversarial situations and not all problems in governing are emotionless. I don't think they were supposed to hate each other, that's a recent phenomenon.

 

Conservatives "The court didn't rule on this specific impeachment trial thus its invalid" also Conservatives "The supreme court already ruled that you can not ban guns and all laws are automatically unconstitutional"

Make up your mind. The fact that you guys support Trump says more about your character than anything else. Can't have altra conservative Pence who at least has some class, nope have to have the big orange clown.

 

But......Trump might as well be saying he doesn't have to honor the subpoenas because unicorns are purple. There is no precedent in law for his claim of absolute immunity. None.

You might also be interested to learn DoJ lawyers claim the courts have no role in deciding the matter.

"Justice Department lawyers had argued that “absolute immunity,” a designation reserved for a select few members of the president’s inner circle, is essential to protecting the president’s ability to seek candid advice from his top advisers. They also insisted the federal courts had no role trying to get between a dispute between the other two branches of government."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...s-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622

 

IOW, there was nothing in there you could paste up that supports the DP impeachment inquiry or vote.

 

The entire COTUS. Give it a more careful read. It is not subtle. Or read Hannah Arendt's statement of the obvious.

"Human beings own corporations. Human beings do not own any government.
Corporations operate to serve the interests of the shareholders. Governments always operate primarily to serve the interests of a ruling political class.

All governments are petri dishes for the growth of a ruling political class which will inevitably have a bias toward corruption and abuse of power. A ruling political class will always try to place itself above the law. Hence the need for checks and balances."
ON REVOLUTION, Hannnah Arendt, Penguin Classics, NY, NY, 2006. p. 257, 258.
https://archive.org/stream/OnRevolution/ArendtOn-revolution_djvu.txt

 

What adversarial situations? And where in the world did you get the idea that they hate each other.

I mean... other than the fact that Trump hates everybody but himself (and temporarily "tolerates" anybody who praises him) all branches of government respect each other. They respect each other as a branch of government. And there is absolutely nothing in the doctrines of separation of powers or weights and balances that would challenge that. And you can't say what it is.

 

So you can't answer the question. What is the purpose of making a claim that you can't support?

I don't give a crap about your book. This person you quote is not here. You are. And if you make a statement you should be able to defend it.

Using references instead of arguments is against forum rules. Plagiarism is also against forum rules. Not that you're doing it.... just making sure you're aware.

Now... do you have arguments? Or was your purpose was just to make a wild claim that you had no way and no intention to support?