Impeachment is a constitutional tool. Let’s use it against Kennedy and Roberts

[kiwiman127]

The Gay Marriage decision is a rallying call for some conservatives based on their alleged morals. They like to cite "the People" as though a majority of the citizens of the United States agree with them, however that isn't the case. According to Gallup, 60% of Americans support Gay Marriage. I happen not to be one of them, I backed the civil unions solution. However, I don't see the sky falling as a result of the Supreme's decision.
The Supreme's made a huge decision a few years back that went against a majority of "the People" and that was the Citizens United decision. 61% viewed that decision as being wrong. Again, it was a morals questions. Yet, many of those up in arms about Gay Marriages, favor Citizens United.
This in many cases isn't about morals, this is about ideology and nothing more.

 

[PratchettFan]

.

Enough has not been said or written about the same sex marriage case until the people pressure the House of Representatives into drawing up articles of impeachment against Roberts for his judicial tyranny in the Obamacare case, and against Kennedy for his judicial tyranny in the same sex marriage case. In each of these cases, neither the text of the Constitution or the legislative intent of our Constitution supports their written opinions. What they both did was use their office of public trust to impose their personal views of justice, fairness and reasonableness upon the entire population of the United States. And that amounts to judicial tyranny!

Keep in mind the following quote: "The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

The American People need to organize a million citizens demonstration in front of our Supreme Court and demand these two tyrants be impeached. If the people do not rise up and show their outrage and demand the impeachment of these two, we will have ”Submit[ted] to despotism . . . and . . . concede[d] the principle" as stated by John Adams.

We have been amply warned about submitting to attacks upon our Constitution:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted, is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

Now, the only question is, will the American People organize a million citizens demonstration against these two? And while we are at it, against three others on our Supreme Court who defy both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

If there is a Constitutional remedy for the actions of this sorry ass court, it is the amendment process, not the impeachment process.

If enough Americans really give a shit about gay marriage(I really don't) then the Constitution can be amended to define marriage as one man and one woman.

I wonder how long the concept that marriage is reserved for couples can survive.

There is no logical reason people should be denied the right to enter into marriages with multiple partners if they so desire.

I agree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Impeachment is a political tool nothing more to get rid of the other side's people when possible.

Sneezing in public could be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if the House indicted it as such and the Senate convicted as such.

 

[PratchettFan]

Impeachment is a political tool nothing more to get rid of the other side's people when possible.

Sneezing in public could be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if the House indicted it as such and the Senate convicted as such.

No, it isn't and no, it can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it can. High crimes and misdemeanours are whatever the House says it is. They don't operate by Pratchettfan's Rules of Order.

 

[JoeMoma]

Impeachment is a political tool nothing more to get rid of the other side's people when possible.

Sneezing in public could be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if the House indicted it as such and the Senate convicted as such.

No, it isn't and no, it can't.

Who is going to stop them if they vote to do so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing. No SCOTUS is going to interfere with the process. The common sense of the House and the Senate is what holds the process together.

 

[PratchettFan]

Impeachment is a political tool nothing more to get rid of the other side's people when possible.

Sneezing in public could be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if the House indicted it as such and the Senate convicted as such.

No, it isn't and no, it can't.

Who is going to stop them if they vote to do so?

The same thing which keeps the president from surrounding the Congress with the military. The Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Impeachment is a political tool nothing more to get rid of the other side's people when possible.

Sneezing in public could be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if the House indicted it as such and the Senate convicted as such.

No, it isn't and no, it can't.

Who is going to stop them if they vote to do so?

The same thing which keeps the president from surrounding the Congress with the military. The Constitution.

Impeachment is constitutional.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course it can. High crimes and misdemeanours are whatever the House says it is. They don't operate by Pratchettfan's Rules of Order.

No, they operate under the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. Impeachment is for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution specifically prohibits ex post facto laws. So Congress is prohibited, by the Constitution, from impeaching any public official except under an existing law.

Of course the government could toss out the Constitution whenever it likes The president could call up the military and declare martial law. But then we would no longer be a Constitutional Republic.

 

[PratchettFan]

Impeachment is a political tool nothing more to get rid of the other side's people when possible.

Sneezing in public could be a "high crime and misdemeanor" if the House indicted it as such and the Senate convicted as such.

No, it isn't and no, it can't.

Who is going to stop them if they vote to do so?

The same thing which keeps the president from surrounding the Congress with the military. The Constitution.

Impeachment is constitutional.

Under the conditions laid out in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it can. High crimes and misdemeanours are whatever the House says it is. They don't operate by Pratchettfan's Rules of Order.

No, they operate under the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. Impeachment is for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution specifically prohibits ex post facto laws. So Congress is prohibited, by the Constitution, from impeaching any public official except under an existing law.

Of course the government could toss out the Constitution whenever it likes The president could call up the military and declare martial law. But then we would no longer be a Constitutional Republic.

You have never taken a class on the Constitution, generally, or impeachment, specifically. Look it up, please.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course it can. High crimes and misdemeanours are whatever the House says it is. They don't operate by Pratchettfan's Rules of Order.

No, they operate under the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. Impeachment is for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution specifically prohibits ex post facto laws. So Congress is prohibited, by the Constitution, from impeaching any public official except under an existing law.

Of course the government could toss out the Constitution whenever it likes The president could call up the military and declare martial law. But then we would no longer be a Constitutional Republic.

You have never taken a class on the Constitution, generally, or impeachment, specifically. Look it up, please.

Uh huh. I'm the only person in this discussion who has actually cited the Constitution but I'm the one who needs to take a class. Think what you like.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am thinking the truth. Congress can decide whatever it wants when it comes to high crimes and misdemeanors. The don't have to follow a criminal guide. Do you understand that?

 

[WinterBorn]

I find it amusing that conservatives call for impeachment of two justices put on the SCOTUS by their hero Ronnie Reagan.

 

[Syriusly]

.

Enough has not been said or written about the same sex marriage case until the people pressure the House of Representatives into drawing up articles of impeachment against Roberts for his judicial tyranny in the Obamacare case, and against Kennedy for his judicial tyranny in the same sex marriage case. In each of these cases, neither the text of the Constitution or the legislative intent of our Constitution supports their written opinions. What they both did was use their office of public trust to impose their personal views of justice, fairness and reasonableness upon the entire population of the United States. And that amounts to judicial tyranny!

Keep in mind the following quote: "The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

The American People need to organize a million citizens demonstration in front of our Supreme Court and demand these two tyrants be impeached. If the people do not rise up and show their outrage and demand the impeachment of these two, we will have ”Submit[ted] to despotism . . . and . . . concede[d] the principle" as stated by John Adams.

We have been amply warned about submitting to attacks upon our Constitution:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted, is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

Now, the only question is, will the American People organize a million citizens demonstration against these two? And while we are at it, against three others on our Supreme Court who defy both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors - not because you don't like their opinion. Why is it that the people who scream about the Constitution the most want to toss it out the window whenever they don't get their way?

Congress gets to determine what high crimes and misdemeanors are in the case of impeachment. Bottom line, if the votes are there then impeachment is there. That being said, the votes aren't there.

Well it is true- Congress could ignore the actual language of the Constitution- and impeach the justices for whatever they want- they could impeach them for being men if they wanted to.

But the reality is that any such impeachment would be seen as purely political revenge against the court- and its not going to happen.

 

[SwimExpert]

.

Enough has not been said or written about the same sex marriage case until the people pressure the House of Representatives into drawing up articles of impeachment against Roberts for his judicial tyranny in the Obamacare case, and against Kennedy for his judicial tyranny in the same sex marriage case. In each of these cases, neither the text of the Constitution or the legislative intent of our Constitution supports their written opinions. What they both did was use their office of public trust to impose their personal views of justice, fairness and reasonableness upon the entire population of the United States. And that amounts to judicial tyranny!

Keep in mind the following quote: "The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

The American People need to organize a million citizens demonstration in front of our Supreme Court and demand these two tyrants be impeached. If the people do not rise up and show their outrage and demand the impeachment of these two, we will have ”Submit[ted] to despotism . . . and . . . concede[d] the principle" as stated by John Adams.

We have been amply warned about submitting to attacks upon our Constitution:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted, is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

Now, the only question is, will the American People organize a million citizens demonstration against these two? And while we are at it, against three others on our Supreme Court who defy both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan would have been every happy with the ME ruling.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am thinking the truth. Congress can decide whatever it wants when it comes to high crimes and misdemeanors. The don't have to follow a criminal guide. Do you understand that?

I understand you have no idea what you are talking about. I will attempt one more time by actually presenting an argument - which you might want to give a shot at:

Crime: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

Misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony

Please note the key to this is a violation of a law. Ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Congress can't impeach anyone because they don't like them. They have to charge them with a violation of a law in existence at the time of the violation. Otherwise, it does not meet constitutional requirements.

But you can believe what you like.