NM11046 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 They're all different, with differing punishments (or lack of) and impact. With some reporting that an resolution has been introduced by 3 Senators for censure (signed by 79 others) today this is a very real, possible circumstance we may see come to light sooner rather than later. It won't take him out of office, but will record for posterity that he's sketchy (my word). I haven't read the actually resolution yet, but I believe it's specific to the recent statements he's made on Charlottesville. In a nutshell - censure is a documented slap on the wrist. Impeachment is in the constitution and has more specific guidelines as far as number of votes etc. A censure in the context of the United States government is an official statement of disapproval or condemnation toward a public official, including cabinet members, judges, members of Congress and the president. While a censure does not remove an individual from office, it can send a powerful message rebuking his or her past actions or statements. Members of the House of Representatives who are censured are forced to give up any committee chairmanships. Unlike impeachment proceedings, which have very set procedural rules, a motion to censure could be introduced, debated or voted on in the House, the Senate or both chambers simultaneously. It could be introduced jointly, in the form of what’s called a concurrent resolution, in both chambers. As is the case with calls for other resolutions, there is no guarantee an individual representative’s motion to censure will be brought to the floor for a vote. According to the National Constitution Center, censure motions were introduced against Presidents Abraham Lincoln, John Tyler, James Polk, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. However, the U.S. Senate has only successfully passed a censure motion against one president. Andrew Jackson. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 To this topic, here is an article that evaluates Trump's mental health. Both Pros, Cons are presented and a neutral - "he isn't mentally unhealthy but dangerous'. Regardless of the opinion on the state of his mental health, I think he has proven to be unfit for the office. While I think he has some serious mental issues, his behavior in office is so impulsive, erratic that it is unproductive at the best and dangerous to the nation (and world) at the worse. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/23/amid-mounting-concerns-presidents-mental-health-more-complicated-than-citing-narcissism-erraticism/490096001/ Link to comment
TGHusker Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 On 8/18/2017 at 3:15 PM, NM11046 said: According to the National Constitution Center, censure motions were introduced against Presidents Abraham Lincoln, John Tyler, James Polk, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. However, the U.S. Senate has only successfully passed a censure motion against one president. Andrew Jackson. The Bold & underlined: And what president does Trump pattern himself after??? During the 2016 election cycle I read the book "American Lion" the Pulitzer prize winning book about Andrew Jackson. (Excellent read by the way) As I read the book, I couldn't help but think of Trump. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted December 1, 2017 Author Share Posted December 1, 2017 I seem to be constantly going to research these and understand the difference and what we may have ahead of us - what a cool time in history huh? If I wasn't so sick about it I'd be feeling pretty lucky to be living through it. Impeachment: Article II, section 4, of the Constitution provides that upon impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate of “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the affected civil officer “shall be removed from Office.” The only Article II remedy is removal — and not criminal penalties. So we'd need the House & The Senate to vote him out. Clinton had one but not the other, thus the tarnished reputation but he stayed in office. Nixon resigned before the votes. Am I right so far? Indictment: This is a criminal charge - and where there seems to be lots of debate. Can the DOJ charge a sitting Pres? I find differing opinions on this, from "No" from the Spiro Agnew legal team, to "Yes" from the Kenneth Starr group. Who can help me with this? Link to comment
RedDenver Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, NM11046 said: I seem to be constantly going to research these and understand the difference and what we may have ahead of us - what a cool time in history huh? If I wasn't so sick about it I'd be feeling pretty lucky to be living through it. Impeachment: Article II, section 4, of the Constitution provides that upon impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate of “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the affected civil officer “shall be removed from Office.” The only Article II remedy is removal — and not criminal penalties. So we'd need the House & The Senate to vote him out. Clinton had one but not the other, thus the tarnished reputation but he stayed in office. Nixon resigned before the votes. Am I right so far? Indictment: This is a criminal charge - and where there seems to be lots of debate. Can the DOJ charge a sitting Pres? I find differing opinions on this, from "No" from the Spiro Agnew legal team, to "Yes" from the Kenneth Starr group. Who can help me with this? From the Constitution, Article 1, Section 3: Quote Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Note the part at the end, which says that after impeachment and conviction, the person impeached can still be subject to criminal charges. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted December 1, 2017 Author Share Posted December 1, 2017 Thanks Red. So we need to have him impeached and then indictment proceedings can begin. The crux to Agnews legals teams writing is that you can indict a sitting president. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 6 minutes ago, NM11046 said: Thanks Red. So we need to have him impeached and then indictment proceedings can begin. The crux to Agnews legals teams writing is that you can indict a sitting president. The thing is Mueller can try and go that route but Trumps lawyers will do everything in their power to say that isn't something they can do. The courts could then decide it's not their decision to make at which point they send it to Congress anyway to decide whether Trump can be indicted as a sitting President or not. Because of this Mueller may not pursue that avenue even though it may actually be within his power. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 FYI, Congress doesn't indict. Impeachment is a political process and outside of the courts. Indictment is a criminal process within the courts. 1 Link to comment
GBR0988 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 People who virtue signal about how great of people they are because of their political views and are so in love with democracy, want to get rid of someone who was duly elected because they don’t like him.... Link to comment
RedDenver Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, GBR0988 said: People who virtue signal about how great of people they are because of their political views and are so in love with democracy, want to get rid of someone who was duly elected because they don’t like him.... Are you talking about the Republicans with Obama? Link to comment
NM11046 Posted December 2, 2017 Author Share Posted December 2, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, GBR0988 said: People who virtue signal about how great of people they are because of their political views and are so in love with democracy, want to get rid of someone who was duly elected because they don’t like him.... Not a matter of "liking" or "not liking" him. My colleagues make bad hires all the time - I don't fault them for that, but I will if they don't admit the mistake or the oversight, or if they refuse to get rid of the problem. Edit: and honestly I don't care if they don't admit it was their mistake - just fix it. Edited December 2, 2017 by NM11046 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, GBR0988 said: People who virtue signal about how great of people they are because of their political views and are so in love with democracy, want to get rid of someone who was duly elected because they don’t like him.... That's completely false. Link to comment
GBR0988 Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 16 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Are you talking about the Republicans with Obama? Not saying you’re totally wrong, but no way the republicans were even half as bad with Obama, as the left is with Trump. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, GBR0988 said: Not saying you’re totally wrong, but no way the republicans were even half as bad with Obama, as the left is with Trump. You're willfully forgetting history if you think that. Remember the "terrorist fist jab" because Michelle and Barack fist bumped? Checkout #2 on this article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-most-ridiculous-moments_us_5613f517e4b022a4ce5f9310 There's tons more of the right being absolutely, crazily ridiculous about Obama. Link to comment
Recommended Posts