When Obama was President, the right argued that the Constitution limited the power of Government.

Now, they argue that the Constitution gives the President unlimited powers.

That's the "Yeah... he did it! So what if he did?" argument. Or better known as the "So What" defense, for short.

This is what Dershowitz will be arguing before the Senate. His position being that a President cannot be impeached for abuse of power.



So if a President cannot be impeached for abuse of power, what limits are there to his power? Elections are certainly not a limit. Because he can abuse power to ensure he's re-elected. He can't be criminally indicted (DoJ directive), and he can't be impeached (So-what Argument) Therefore the President has unlimited power.

What made Republicans change their mind? What changed since the Obama administration and to the Trump administration that produced such a monstrous FLOP?

Can somebody explain?

 

Raise your hand if you are bored of impeachment and want to get on to the election...



Just vote already and be done with it.

 

I understand that, this is looking so ugly for your side that you wish it would just... go away.

But that doesn't answer the question. Why are you guys advocating for unlimited power for government now, when it was the contrary when Obama was president?

 

You know, these guys need a good soundtrack to go along with their contortionism act.

 

If the abuse of power was leaving pallets of billions in cash on the tarmac in Moscow in the middle of the night that would be a high crime and would be impeachable.

 

Not according to Dershowitz. Or to you! And my question is why you thought it was back then, but not now?

Tough question that I know you can't answer.

 

Tell you the truth, I could care less.

I'm glad you believe this is all bad for trump. It's a win win for trump.

I think this is aimed to screw Bernie Sanders. Democrats play dirty.

 

Oh.... you care a lot! You're not fooling anybody. That's why you're here pleading for the "idol". You are very worried and will probably not sleep very well this week.

But I do take your wussiness as a concession. Thank you.

 

Another one of your exaggerations.

 

The limits whereby any exercise of power results in a specific impeachable offense of the types Dershowitz will almost certainly be describing and exploring in great detail.

Is that really so hard to understand? I haven't formed an opinion yet on Dershowitz's argument, mostly because IT DOESN'T EXIST AT THIS POINT.

Suggest any rational people do the same and wait to hear the argument.

But please do continue the cracked crystal ball gazing, it's amusing.

 

Another false premise.

Abuse of Power is an opinion. It is based on hate and not the law. The dem clown show said they would impeach Trump before he was sworn in. That you support this means that the next time there is a republican house and a dem President any disagreement will be met with an impeachment.

 

LOL, keep fooling yourself. Fun to watch.

 

Supposing what Trump did was illegal (it wasn't) theres two things that would likely prevent his supporters from worrying about it.

A- its pretty obvious that the Dems only care because it was Trump that did it and it was the Dem frontrunner that was exposed by it. If it had been an establishment pick exposing a republican, the response would have been polar opposite. This sort of crap has been SOP in international politics for as long as politics has been international. Trump can't do it just because he is Trump.

B- the Constitution is factually a limit on what the govt can do. But perceptually, its a limit on what the government can do to Americans. Trump is far more protecting the most prized of American freedoms (gun rights, free speech, free market) than he is limiting Americans (as every other choice for president is campaigning on doing). If he's violating the Constitution (which I have yet to be convinced of), he's not doing it in any way that stands to violate our freedoms, which is something thats been lacking in presidents for a very long time.

The left has been twisting law and redefining terms to undermine the Constitution legally for decades, and now you ask why we support someone who isn't but may be acting in a questionably legal manner? I would suggest maybe you don't understand the true purpose of the Rule of Law. In America, its far more about protecting liberty than promoting order.

 

This has gotta be disingenuous trolling. No one tried to impeach Obama for his use of executive power.

Is abuse of power a bad thing? Duh, it is. Is it impeachable? Nope.

If abuse of power was impeachable, Obama would be impeached 10X over. You realize if you use your presidential powers to commit crimes to get yourself re-elected, you can be impeached for those specific crimes.

Abuse of power isn't something specific, it's a general statement that doesn't capture anything.

It's like impeaching someone for lying, a lie can be a crime, but you can't just impeach someone for the lying.

If a lie constituted wire fraud, then sure, impeach for wire fraud, not for lying.

Abuse of power can lead to impeachable crimes, but itself is not a impeachable crime.

Abuse of power can lead to treason (which is a impeachable crime).

They can't prove any specifics on Trump, so they go with a general catch all, nonimpeachable offense.

 

Undoing Obama's huge over reach is limiting government power.

 

One, the framers explicitly rejected maladministration as an impeachable offense. Two, abuse of power is an obtuse and subjective "problem", not defined anywhere and certainly not in the statutes. Abuse of Office is in the statutes but has precise definitions none of which Trump has come anywhere close to violating. Abuse of Power is just a throw away meaningless charge used if you can't find anything real.

 

Dershowitz claims that there is no way to hold a President accountable if he surpasses those limits.

So that makes any limits irrelevant. Which obviously means that the President, according to Dershowitz, effectively has almost unlimited powers.

This thread is to discuss opinions about the claim that Dershowitz made publicly. And the question is if you agree or not that the President cannot be impeached for abusing his powers. If you have no opinion, then I have no idea why you are participating in it.

 

That's completely irrelevant. Why should I, or you, typical Americans, care WHY Dems "do it"? What difference does that make? We only care if the President abuses power. Or, at least, I do. Because I believe there should be limits to government. Do you believe that or not?
st because he is Trump.

What keeps a President from going over that limit? Dershowitz says nothing can. Because a President cannot be impeached for abuse of power. Do you agree with him or not?

Your attempt to discombobulate a couple of simple questions is dully noted, but are no substitute for simple "yes" "no" responses.

 

No "they" dont. Thread fail.

 

There are two possible explanations for that: either Obama did not abuse that power for personal benefit, or Republicans are complete incompetents, given that they had control of both Chambers for the last 2 years (and control of the House for 6)

So you believe that Government has limitless power?

Ok. so you believe that the only reason a President can be impeached is if they give and comfort to the enemy at times of war.

Got it!

 

I am not qualified to get deep into the weeds into a constitutional law debate that Dershowitz will undoubtedly have with another constitutional lawyer over this topic. All that I would be doing is parroting his words. Additionally, I am not all that interested in the topic. The abuse argument fails with or without the Alan Dershowitz argument. I suspect that you are equally unqualified, and would simply be parroting the words of the counter argument.

With that being said, your OP presents a false choice. It is NOT an either/ or situation. The positions are not necessarily incompatible. The Constitution unquestionably sets limits upon the federal government, not the least of which being through the constitutionally mandated checks and balances. Just because Republicans argued that the constitution sets limits upon the federal government does NOT automatically mean that the limits put a stop to every potential action, which is what your false choice seems to be implying.

It is perfectly reasonable that one could correctly conclude that the Constitution sets limits upon the federal government, and that abuse of power is NOT one of those explicit limits. If you have a specific argument made during the Obama years that you feel is not being applied equally today, please make reference to that argument and to what it was being applied. Up until this point however, you have just used some over generalization that doesn't really apply to anything other than to create a false choice. In order for your OP argument to be legitimate, you would have to be arguing that Republicans said that the Constitution limits abuse of power by the President, and now they are making the opposite argument. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

My answer to that question lays, as is too often the case, in the part of my comment you deleted... I'm not playing that game.

 

Maladministration is not abuse of power. It's incompetence.

At the time they called it "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". It is defined in Common Law. It's a term of art.

Alexander Hamilton: "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Federalist No. 65
​

 

Why would you guess the framers didn't put "abuse of power" in the constitution in lieu of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

You are reading into Hamilton your desire. If you read it carefully and correctly you will find nothing akin to the current Articles of Impeachment. Do you actually believe a president can be impeached over a term of art??????????

 

What good does that do if, according to Dershowitz, the President can't be impeached for abusing his power to step over those limits?

I wouldn't get into a discussion with Dershowitz, but I would ask questions. I have seen him stumble when trying to answer questions by reporters. Go on long diatribes to evade answering. I would make him respond to questions like the above. And many others.

I'm starting to wonder if the anouncement of bringing Dershowitz was not just a bluff. I can't even imagine Trump's defense team trying to push such nonsense. I may be wrong.... they might do it. But see no way it can benefit Trump in the eyes of the public.

Of course, I am aware that this is not about facts, or the Constitution... It's about giving the Senators some sort of excuse for them to vote to acquit Trump. Which they will do no matter what. And they will do so unanimously. So they are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. Dershowitz argument is as good as anything they can come up with.

Are you aware of the nonsense in that paragraph? Abuse of power, by definition, is to overstep those limits.