House Democrats ask Trump to testify at his impeachment trial

[cmarshall]

31 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There were many conflicting views on the proper purpose and limits on federal government in the Constitutional Convention.  James Madison reflected the views of the wealthy Virginia farmers.

 

The issues I mentioned resulted from the populist democracies in the individual states and their refusal to make concessions for the greater good of the nation.  I assumed that was what you meant by "excessive democracies".  What did you mean?

 

All of the Framers were rich men and the fact that they agreed on the measures to protect their wealth is evident in the text of the Constitution.  Madison's proposals were mostly adopted by the Convention and incorporated into the Constitution demonstrating that he spoke for much more than just the South.  Madison wrote most of the Constitution himself, let's not forget.  

 

The populist policies of the Confederation states were not responsible for the failures of the national government.  Those policies arose from regional and state-level competition and included the conflict over a treaty with Spain ceding the navigation of the Mississippi, the requirement of super-majorities or unanimity in the Confederation Congress to make decisions, the inability of the national government to enforce taxation of the states if they resisted, the competition between the agricultural South and the industrializing North, and the lack of a national army to deal with insurrection among others.

 

The populist policies that alarmed the wealthy Framers as "excessively democratic were those that favored the bulk of the population at the expense of the rich.  These issues were entirely distinct from the regional conflicts and included:  issuance of paper money as legal tender, debt and tax forbearance, payment of taxes in kind, moratoria on farm foreclosures, short terms of legislators and congressmen, typically one year, and the right to recall congressmen by vote among others.

 

Madison's Constitution was  designed to protect the wealth of the creditor class who wrote it from confiscation by the majority in one form or another, such as by inflation arising from paper money that could easily be devalued.

Edited February 8, 2021 by cmarshall

[Surelynot]

35 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Most eminent legal scholars agree, its constitutional. There will be a trial. I will listen to what the experts say.

 

If it gets 60 votes to convict that would be a major victory for dems.

...and society...

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

...and society...

Touche. Thst is the most important.

[heybruce]

54 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

All of the Framers were rich men and the fact that they agreed on the measures to protect their wealth is evident in the text of the Constitution.  Madison's proposals were mostly adopted by the Convention and incorporated into the Constitution demonstrating that he spoke for much more than just the South.  Madison wrote most of the Constitution himself, let's not forget.  

 

The populist policies of the Confederation states were not responsible for the failures of the national government.  Those policies arose from regional and state-level competition and included the conflict over a treaty with Spain ceding the navigation of the Mississippi, the requirement of super-majorities or unanimity in the Confederation Congress to make decisions, the inability of the national government to enforce taxation of the states if they resisted, the competition between the agricultural South and the industrializing North, and the lack of a national army to deal with insurrection among others.

 

The populist policies that alarmed the wealthy Framers as "excessively democratic were those that favored the bulk of the population at the expense of the rich.  These issues were entirely distinct from the regional conflicts and included:  issuance of paper money as legal tender, debt and tax forbearance, payment of taxes in kind, moratoria on farm foreclosures, short terms of legislators and congressmen, typically one year, and the right to recall congressmen by vote among others.

 

Madison's Constitution was  designed to protect the wealth of the creditor class who wrote it from confiscation by the majority in one form or another, such as by inflation arising from paper money that could easily be devalued.

We are getting into off-topic quibbling here.  You correctly listed some, perhaps all, of the major issues driving the need for a Constitution more binding on the states.  I regard the "what's in it for my state" attitude that prevented the states from cooperating under the Articles to be a form of populism, but it's not important enough to debate.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Most eminent legal scholars agree, its constitutional. There will be a trial. I will listen to what the experts say.

 

If it gets 60 votes to convict that would be a major victory for dems.

Agree but more importantly than the process, it is the merits of the impeachment trial that some here try to overlook and hijacked for their own self indulging interpretation. 
 

Trump incited and radicalized his supporters to mount the insurrection at Capitol Hill. Lots of evidence and played out by the minutes in front of live audience. The conviction will heal the wound of this attempted coup and deter future divisive leaders like Trump to do similar acts just before they leave office.
 

Unfortunately conviction ain’t going to happen because the GOP’s values have been subjugated by lawmakers who prefer political expediency rather than morality. 

[onthedarkside]

An off-topic post on voting machines has been removed, along with a pair of bickering posts.

 

[placeholder]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:59 AM, cmarshall said:

So far, you have made the truly extraordinary argument that the Congress has any power not specifically excluded by the Constitution, for which you will find no support at all among the constitutional scholars you are otherwise fond of citing.

 

False. I made the argument that the scope of the Tenth Amendment is widely disputed.  And since many distinguished Constitutional scholars claim that the Congress can impeach an ex President, clearly they don't find your argument that it applies here compelling in the least. One such scholar is Keith Whittington whom I quoted earlier:

 

.Keith E. Whittington is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics in the Department of Politics at Princeton University. He is the author of Repugnant Laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present (which won the Thomas M. Cooley Book Prize) and Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech (which won the PROSE Award for best book in education and the Heterodox Academy Award for Exceptional Scholarship)), as well as Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning, and Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review, and Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History...

https://scholar.princeton.edu/kewhitt/home

 

If you follow the link you'll find there's more to his curriculum vitae than that. 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by onthedarkside
shortened for fair use

[Sujo]

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

False. I made the argument that the scope of the Tenth Amendment is widely disputed.  And since many distinguished Constitutional scholars claim that the Congress can impeach an ex President, clearly they don't find your argument that it applies here compelling in the least. One such scholar is Keith Whittington whom I quoted earlier:

.Keith E. Whittington is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics in the Department of Politics at Princeton University. He is the author of Repugnant Laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present (which won the Thomas M. Cooley Book Prize) and Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech (which won the PROSE Award for best book in education and the Heterodox Academy Award for Exceptional Scholarship)), as well as Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning, and Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review, and Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History ...

 

https://scholar.princeton.edu/kewhitt/home

 

If you follow the link you'll find there's more to his curriculum vitae than that. 

 

Please stop with facts. Most legal scholars with credibility on both sides say its constituional. 

 

These legal experts on both sides have been accused of bush lawyer thinking by a person who had never presented their own credibility.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, cmarshall said:

If the Senate can extend the scope of the class subject to an impeachment trial to be the president, the vice president, other civil officers, and former such office-holders without authorization from the Constitution, why could they not extend the class to the president, the vice president, other civil officers, former such office-holders and all others aspiring to hold such office?  That extension is not explicitly forbidden the Constitution and according to your theory ought to be permitted.

Once again, you're claiming the applicability of the 10th Amendment here. If, for the sake of argument we accept your premise that the 10 Amendment applies here, that would mean since the US government doesn't have the power to try ex officials, then states would have that power. Which is nuts. Just as nuts is your contention that the Constitution would allow impeachment of people who have never held office. Clearly, it's implicit that you can't be tried for high crimes and midemeanors while in office, if you haven't held such an office. What you don't seem to understand is that Constitutional scholars who support impeachment of ex officials say that it was implicitly understood to be the case by the framers of the Constitution. 

Also, I haven't seen any scholar who opposes such impeachments invoke the 10th Amendment as a reason to rule it out. Clearly, it's way too vague to support such an interpretation.

Edited February 8, 2021 by placeholder

[ExpatOK]

On 2/6/2021 at 3:42 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

I read and could find if needed that the supporters by a 60% willing to leave the Republican Party for trump. Putting a number on record.

But you didn't.

[Mike k]

On 05/02/2021 at 5:32 AM, Justgrazing said:

 

Great stuff .. if it's a Bible he has to swear on can we expect a bolt of lightning straight through the ceiling from the Lord above vapourising him with nothing left but smouldering shoe soles .. 

Same as most of the politicians and the president and vice president that swore to uphold the constitution 

[Surelynot]

On 2/4/2021 at 10:32 PM, Justgrazing said:

 

Great stuff .. if it's a Bible he has to swear on can we expect a bolt of lightning straight through the ceiling from the Lord above vapourising him with nothing left but smouldering shoe soles .. 

He might hedge his bets and use the Quran 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

He might hedge his bets and use the Quran 

Sorry. That eminent Constitutional scholar ,Marjorie Taylor Green, has stated that if an officeholder swears in using a Koran, it's not valid. It has to be a Bible. She didn't specify whether only the Old Testament would be sufficient.

 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Sorry. That eminent Constitutional scholar ,Marjorie Taylor Green, has stated that if an officeholder swears in using a Koran, it's not valid. It has to be a Bible. She didn't specify whether only the Old Testament would be sufficient.

 

Well that beckon of light in these dark times will know what's best for sure.....555

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, Surelynot said:

He might hedge his bets and use the Quran 

Borrow Jareds Torah

 

[RJRS1301]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Sorry. That eminent Constitutional scholar ,Marjorie Taylor Green, has stated that if an officeholder swears in using a Koran, it's not valid. It has to be a Bible. She didn't specify whether only the Old Testament would be sufficient.

 

So not allowed to take a Affirmation if he has become an agnostic or atheist?

That would the scholar , although she probably has no idea what either of those words mean.

 

[OZinPattaya]

Ah, yet another anti-Trump, anti-western TVF post. It really does beg the question as to why you aging white western men decided to abandon your mother countries for SEA if you actually agreed with the politics of said mother country. If everything is so wonderful in Britain and the EU, why not make that your homestead?

 

Talk politics all you want, but this is all just white male guilt consciousness by any other name. And it's getting really, really old.

 

I'd hazard to guess that 90% of TVF commentators on American politics aren't even Americans. Get a life. Worry about your own country for once. It's sad. There are some good Thai soaps out there.

Edited February 9, 2021 by OZinPattaya

[OZinPattaya]

On 2/4/2021 at 4:32 PM, Justgrazing said:

 

Great stuff .. if it's a Bible he has to swear on can we expect a bolt of lightning straight through the ceiling from the Lord above vapourising him with nothing left but smouldering shoe soles .. 

We can only if that bolt goes through Biden and Pelosi first. Maybe then it might hit the Orange Man by happy accident.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by OZinPattaya

[OZinPattaya]

On 2/4/2021 at 4:32 PM, ukrules said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump just ignores the whole thing and makes a point of taking a vacation at the time.

Hmm, I wonder why someone would be reluctant to testify on a second political sham impeachment which is tantamount to an invitation to a public flogging. We all know how the first impeachment went--all that Russian collusion and all.

[RJRS1301]

48 minutes ago, OZinPattaya said:

Ah, yet another anti-Trump, anti-western TVF post. It really does beg the question as to why you aging white western men decided to abandon your mother countries for SEA if you actually agreed with the politics of said mother country. If everything is so wonderful in Britain and the EU, why not make that your homestead?

 

Talk politics all you want, but this is all just white male guilt consciousness by any other name. And it's getting really, really old.

 

I'd hazard to guess that 90% of TVF commentators on American politics aren't even Americans. Get a life. Worry about your own country for once. It's sad. There are some good Thai soaps out there.

I trust you understand at least on some level that the politics of the USA often has a roll on effect on it "allies" many of which were alienated during the previous administration

The anti Trump feeling are not necessarily anti "west"

The comments have nothing to do with "guilt" perhaps they hold other more ethical standards than the previous president exhibited, and have a greater understanding of governance than displayed by the previous president, and saw things which they have a right (freedom of speech), to express

Civilised people can agree to disagree, with attempting to close down open debate. That is why forums exist.

A little like "Letters to Editors" once did.

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, OZinPattaya said:

Hmm, I wonder why someone would be reluctant to testify on a second political sham impeachment which is tantamount to an invitation to a public flogging. We all know how the first impeachment went--all that Russian collusion and all.

perhaps a chance to show "innocence" against the charges levelled.

Conflating the two trials is disengenuous, one would hazard a gues the opportunity clear ones name.

[OZinPattaya]

28 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I trust you understand at least on some level that the politics of the USA often has a roll on effect on it "allies" many of which were alienated during the previous administration

The anti Trump feeling are not necessarily anti "west"

The comments have nothing to do with "guilt" perhaps they hold other more ethical standards than the previous president exhibited, and have a greater understanding of governance than displayed by the previous president, and saw things which they have a right (freedom of speech), to express

Civilised people can agree to disagree, with attempting to close down open debate. That is why forums exist.

A little like "Letters to Editors" once did.

A British guy in Thailand once said to me, "When America sneezes Britain catches a cold." But it's weird and unhealthy how much interest non-Americans take in American politics, and the arrogance is abominable. I stand by my previous statement, that all you Brits and Euros need to worry about your own countries for once and stop sitting on your arm-chairs expatiating on all that's gone awry in Yankee-land.

 

And you're wrong--it has everything to do with western, male, white guilt. Let's be honest here. Why uproot your existence and move to a third-world country, and in the meanwhile, consort with the native women? Just because you prefer their stimulating conversation?

Edited February 9, 2021 by OZinPattaya

[Sujo]

49 minutes ago, OZinPattaya said:

A British guy in Thailand once said to me, "When America sneezes Britain catches a cold." But it's weird and unhealthy how much interest non-Americans take in American politics, and the arrogance is abominable. I stand by my previous statement, that all you Brits and Euros need to worry about your own countries for once and stop sitting on your arm-chairs expatiating on all that's gone awry in Yankee-land.

 

And you're wrong--it has everything to do with western, male, white guilt. Let's be honest here. Why uproot your existence and move to a third-world country, and in the meanwhile, consort with the native women? Just because you prefer their stimulating conversation?

Why cant they worry about both.

 

if you havent noticed, its a discussion board, where people discuss things. Its odd you are on such a site complaining about people doing what the site is for.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sujo

[SunnyinBangrak]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

 

The comments have nothing to do with "guilt" perhaps they hold other more ethical standards than the previous president exhibited, and have a greater understanding of governance than displayed by the previous president, and saw things which they have a right (freedom of speech), to express

Civilised people can agree to disagree, with attempting to close down open debate. That is why forums exist.

A little like "Letters to Editors" once did.

Having repeatedly accused Trump of being corrupt and having improper relations with hostile foreign leaders with no evidence, they now have a new President that requires total censorship and no critical words may be written about 46 to stop allegations/evidence of corruption and having improper relations with hostile foreign leaders. Can you explain how removing free speech and making it verboten to hold a new president accountable is "ethical"? Seems the complete opposite to me.

[Sujo]

33 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Having repeatedly accused Trump of being corrupt and having improper relations with hostile foreign leaders with no evidence, they now have a new President that requires total censorship and no critical words may be written about 46 to stop allegations/evidence of corruption and having improper relations with hostile foreign leaders. Can you explain how removing free speech and making it verboten to hold a new president accountable is "ethical"? Seems the complete opposite to me.

What removal of free speech?

what corruption?

what improper relations?

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sujo

[Tug]

35 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Having repeatedly accused Trump of being corrupt and having improper relations with hostile foreign leaders with no evidence, they now have a new President that requires total censorship and no critical words may be written about 46 to stop allegations/evidence of corruption and having improper relations with hostile foreign leaders. Can you explain how removing free speech and making it verboten to hold a new president accountable is "ethical"? Seems the complete opposite to me.

Guess old Donald doesent have the big platform to lie anymore hey here’s a thought do you rember donalds first day in office?I sure do do you rember helinsky?I sure do I rember lots and lots of things trump has brought down on us the Biden administration is very busy cleaning up the mess trump left behind personally I could care less if trump decides to (lie) testify at his trial we saw what he did he’s definitely guilty as charged the problem is the Republican Party is to terrified of the (republican) mob to do the right thing

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

A British guy in Thailand once said to me, "When America sneezes Britain catches a cold." But it's weird and unhealthy how much interest non-Americans take in American politics, and the arrogance is abominable. I stand by my previous statement, that all you Brits and Euros need to worry about your own countries for once and stop sitting on your arm-chairs expatiating on all that's gone awry in Yankee-land.

 

And you're wrong--it has everything to do with western, male, white guilt. Let's be honest here. Why uproot your existence and move to a third-world country, and in the meanwhile, consort with the native women? Just because you prefer their stimulating conversation?

It's unhealthy for non-Americans to take so much interest in American politics? If that's true, I hope you get well soon.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

Ah, yet another anti-Trump, anti-western TVF post. It really does beg the question as to why you aging white western men decided to abandon your mother countries for SEA if you actually agreed with the politics of said mother country. If everything is so wonderful in Britain and the EU, why not make that your homestead?

 

Talk politics all you want, but this is all just white male guilt consciousness by any other name. And it's getting really, really old.

 

I'd hazard to guess that 90% of TVF commentators on American politics aren't even Americans. Get a life. Worry about your own country for once. It's sad. There are some good Thai soaps out there.

How is this topic or any comment posted here "white male guilt consciousness"?  I opposed Trump because he's corrupt, incompetent, and a threat to American institution such as a free press and non-political justice system, not because he's white.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

Hmm, I wonder why someone would be reluctant to testify on a second political sham impeachment which is tantamount to an invitation to a public flogging. We all know how the first impeachment went--all that Russian collusion and all.

The first impeachment was not about Russian collusion, it was about Trump's thinly veiled suggestion that he would hold up military aide to Ukraine if that country did not institute a sham investigation of Joe Biden.

[Surelynot]

6 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

A British guy in Thailand once said to me, "When America sneezes Britain catches a cold." But it's weird and unhealthy how much interest non-Americans take in American politics, and the arrogance is abominable. I stand by my previous statement, that all you Brits and Euros need to worry about your own countries for once and stop sitting on your arm-chairs expatiating on all that's gone awry in Yankee-land.

 

And you're wrong--it has everything to do with western, male, white guilt. Let's be honest here. Why uproot your existence and move to a third-world country, and in the meanwhile, consort with the native women? Just because you prefer their stimulating conversation?

Wrong time of the month to be posting?