Should the Legislative Branch have veto power over who is elected President?

[jwoodie]

This is a bottom line question for our democracy: Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections? This actually occurred after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, when the Republican House refused to accept the election of the Democrat Tilden.

Modernly, the Democratic House has been trying to do the same thing regarding the 2016 election. Is this a good thing for our democracy? Does the Constitution really confer this type of veto authority on the Legislative Branch?

 

[Oddball]

no

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a bottom line question for our democracy: Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections? This actually occurred after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, when the Republican House refused to accept the election of the Democrat Tilden.

Modernly, the Democratic House has been trying to do the same thing regarding the 2016 election. Is this a good thing for our democracy? Does the Constitution really confer this type of veto authority on the Legislative Branch?

just one problem,,,
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!

 

[diver52]

I think that is covered by the 12th amendment.,

 

[beautress]

"Should the Legislative Branch have veto power over who is elected President?"

As John Wayne might say, "Wull, it's a little late, Pilgrum."

 

[Staidhup]

We are a Republic and the last thing I would want to see is a house of politicians dictating whom is fit to lead the country, hell these idiots, and clowns, can't even accomplish the simple tasks they were elected to do in the first place.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's not really a debate in our Republic. The legislative branch has the authority to remove a sitting president.

Do you want to remove that authority from the Constitution?

 

[alang1216]

This is a bottom line question for our democracy: Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections? This actually occurred after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, when the Republican House refused to accept the election of the Democrat Tilden.

Modernly, the Democratic House has been trying to do the same thing regarding the 2016 election. Is this a good thing for our democracy? Does the Constitution really confer this type of veto authority on the Legislative Branch?

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president. If the legislature can't remove a president we have a dictatorship.

 

[Staidhup]

The process of impeachment should only be used when a crime has been committed. As has been demonstrated the rules of evidence are not required to impeach a sitting president which provides congress the opportunity to set their own prerequisites or justification to impeach. Fabricated, hear say, media stories, and unverified evidence should not be admissible, yet as we see it is the core basis justifying this investigation.

 

[BlindBoo]

The process of impeachment should only be used when a crime has been committed.

Impeachment is entirely political.

 

[g5000]

This is a bottom line question for our democracy: Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections? This actually occurred after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, when the Republican House refused to accept the election of the Democrat Tilden.

Modernly, the Democratic House has been trying to do the same thing regarding the 2016 election. Is this a good thing for our democracy? Does the Constitution really confer this type of veto authority on the Legislative Branch?

It's called checks and balances. To prevent tyranny.

Trump thinks and behaves like a tyrant. Thank God we have those checks and balances.

As for whining about impeachment, the pseudocon tards began screaming for Obama's impeachment on Day One of his presidency, and didn't let up until his last day. And Trump spent years trying to prove a birther hoax in an attempt to show Obama was disqualified to be president.

So I say let karma kick fuckwit Trump and his tard herd in the nuts every day. Hard.

 

[jwoodie]

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president.

Used being the operative term. The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeachment, not retaliation for winning an election. The fact that it has been misused as a political weapon does not alter this fact.

 

[alang1216]

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president.

Used being the operative term. The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeachment, not retaliation for winning an election. The fact that it has been misused as a political weapon does not alter this fact.

misdemeanor:

1. a minor wrongdoing

The GOP set the bar pretty low when they impeached Clinton for essentially lying about an affair. How did that affect the country? It is easier to see Trump hurting the country by asking for personal favors from a foreign gov't.

 

[diver52]

The process of impeachment should only be used when a crime has been committed. As has been demonstrated the rules of evidence are not required to impeach a sitting president which provides congress the opportunity to set their own prerequisites or justification to impeach. Fabricated, hear say, media stories, and unverified evidence should not be admissible, yet as we see it is the core basis justifying this investigation.

Then you need an amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a bottom line question for our democracy: Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections? This actually occurred after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, when the Republican House refused to accept the election of the Democrat Tilden.

Modernly, the Democratic House has been trying to do the same thing regarding the 2016 election. Is this a good thing for our democracy? Does the Constitution really confer this type of veto authority on the Legislative Branch?

It's called impeachment. It is a political process.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president.

Used being the operative term. The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeachment, not retaliation for winning an election. The fact that it has been misused as a political weapon does not alter this fact.

The problem with your "proper use" is that it is not supported by the constitution.

There is no standard of proof (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence)

There is no burden of proof (meaning accusations alone are good enough)

All Congress needs is votes.

.

 

[jc456]

It's not really a debate in our Republic. The legislative branch has the authority to remove a sitting president.

Do you want to remove that authority from the Constitution?

they seem incompetent to use it. so yes.

 

[jwoodie]

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president.

Used being the operative term. The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeachment, not retaliation for winning an election. The fact that it has been misused as a political weapon does not alter this fact.

misdemeanor:

1. a minor wrongdoing

The GOP set the bar pretty low when they impeached Clinton for essentially lying about an affair. How did that affect the country? It is easier to see Trump hurting the country by asking for personal favors from a foreign gov't.

1. So you believe that a "minor wrongdoing" is a legitimate basis for impeachment? Does jaywalking qualify? And do you consider perjury to be a minor wrongdoing? (The Arkansas State Bar considered it serious enough to warrant disbarment.)

2. Why do you consider a request to investigate corrupt dealings with a foreign government to be a personal favor? Does announcing that you intend to run for public office inoculate you from such investigation?

3. Exactly how has Trump "hurt the country," other than defeating Hillary Clinton?

 

[flewism]

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president.

Used being the operative term. The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeachment, not retaliation for winning an election. The fact that it has been misused as a political weapon does not alter this fact.

misdemeanor:

1. a minor wrongdoing

The GOP set the bar pretty low when they impeached Clinton for essentially lying about an affair. How did that affect the country? It is easier to see Trump hurting the country by asking for personal favors from a foreign gov't.

A few facts: Bill Clinton was impeached based on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied under oath and to the United States Office of the Independent Counsel
United States Office of the Independent Counsel


United States Office of the Independent Counsel was an independent prosecutor — distinct from the Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice — that provided reports to the Congress under 28 U.S.C. § 595. The office was terminated in 1999 and replaced by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel.

freebase.com
. He later admitted to the lies because that was the course of least resistance for him.

Then convict Trump if you can.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course, it is written in the Constitution. Impeachment can only be used against an elected president.

Used being the operative term. The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis for impeachment, not retaliation for winning an election. The fact that it has been misused as a political weapon does not alter this fact.

misdemeanor:

1. a minor wrongdoing

The GOP set the bar pretty low when they impeached Clinton for essentially lying about an affair. How did that affect the country? It is easier to see Trump hurting the country by asking for personal favors from a foreign gov't.

1. So you believe that a "minor wrongdoing" is a legitimate basis for impeachment? Does jaywalking qualify? And do you consider perjury to be a minor wrongdoing? (The Arkansas State Bar considered it serious enough to warrant disbarment.)

2. Why do you consider a request to investigate corrupt dealings with a foreign government to be a personal favor? Does announcing that you intend to run for public office inoculate you from such investigation?

3. Exactly how has Trump "hurt the country," other than defeating Hillary Clinton?

1. So you believe that a "minor wrongdoing" is a legitimate basis for impeachment?

ANYTHING or NOTHING AT ALL is a legitimate basis for impeachment if you have the VOTES.

It's a political process. Nothing more.

.