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

[BluesLegend]

We will put the legislative branch in prison first.

Who is "we"?

Lib please you people would fold like a cheap lawn chair.

 

[jwoodie]

1. I didn't write the Constitution but someone thought 'misdemeanors' were sufficient for impeachment if enough legislators agreed. They didn't have to include the term.

Exactly. So why did they?

2. Curious coincidence that he was only concerned with Biden, the man most likely to face him in the election, and never mentioned Obama the man really responsible for policy. He made locking up Hillary a campaign mantra but has done little about her since.

Biden was already a dead man walking.

3. Does America have any allies or just countries afraid to cross Godfather
Don.

You seem to be confusing allies with adversaries.

 

[JWBooth]

Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections?

Of course not.

 

[jwoodie]

Starr investigated Whitewater for 4 years and ended up asking Clinton if he had an affair under oath. Maybe we should ask Trump the same question, under oath.

Yes, we should: Did you have sex with a subordinate intern in the White House?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

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.

The grounds to remove a POTUS are clearly and specifically enumerated and "Trump is a poopyhead" is not among them.

And yes, our Hysterical House Dems are just as clearly overstepping their authority. We voters will have the opportunity to decide who shall be removed from office in little more than 13 months.

 

[NoVote]

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

Should America have a Civil War before the communist left gets any stronger?

 

[percysunshine]

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?

Y’aii need to go back to school and take civics class again. It is the Legislative branch, via the States, which elects the President in the first place.

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?

There are 538 electors, one for each House representative, and one for each Senator. The Legislative branch chooses the electors, and then counts their votes.

Congress, via the States, elected Trump.

 

[jwoodie]

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

Should America have a Civil War before the communist left gets any stronger?

Since the Left will stop at nothing short of complete control, that may be the only alternative.

 

[Dick Foster]

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?

No!

 

[alang1216]

Starr investigated Whitewater for 4 years and ended up asking Clinton if he had an affair under oath. Maybe we should ask Trump the same question, under oath.

Yes, we should: Did you have sex with a subordinate intern in the White House?

I believe Clinton was asked, under oath, about affairs he had previous to becoming president so the question to Trump should be more broad.

 

[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.

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.

The grounds to remove a POTUS are clearly and specifically enumerated and "Trump is a poopyhead" is not among them.

And yes, our Hysterical House Dems are just as clearly overstepping their authority. We voters will have the opportunity to decide who shall be removed from office in little more than 13 months.

The grounds to remove a POTUS are NOT clearly and specifically enumerated. Do you have a specific definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'?

Currently the Dems are investigating Trump, well within their scope of responsibility. As I understand it, we'll have to wait for an actual article of impeachment to judge them. My guess is that they will investigate and publish their findings before the election but not impeach. They will then let the voters decide once they have the facts. That seems like a reasonable scenario to me.

 

[diver52]

We will put the legislative branch in prison first.

Who is "we"?

Lib please you people would fold like a cheap lawn chair.

So "we" is just your version of a wet dream.

 

[alang1216]

1. I didn't write the Constitution but someone thought 'misdemeanors' were sufficient for impeachment if enough legislators agreed. They didn't have to include the term.

Exactly. So why did they?

2. Curious coincidence that he was only concerned with Biden, the man most likely to face him in the election, and never mentioned Obama the man really responsible for policy. He made locking up Hillary a campaign mantra but has done little about her since.

Biden was already a dead man walking.

3. Does America have any allies or just countries afraid to cross Godfather
Don.

You seem to be confusing allies with adversaries.

1. Uhhh, someone thought 'misdemeanors' were sufficient for impeachment if enough legislators agreed?

2. Trumps' own polls disagree.

3. Is France an ally or adversary?

 

[alang1216]

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

Should America have a Civil War before the communist left gets any stronger?

I guess it is not just commies that don't like democracy.

 

[CWayne]

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?

You make that a blank statement.

The Legislative branch has the authority to remove a sitting President -- for cause.

Or do you think they can just say, "Today we feel like impeaching the President" and adhere to no standard cause?

That would amount to what the OP is stating. It is a veto of the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a bottom line question for our democracy: Should the Legislative Branch have veto authority over Presidential elections?

No. Our electoral system is just fine the way it is.

 

[busybee01]

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?

Impeachment is a part of the Constitution. Clearly the founding fathers wanted a way to to hold Presidents accountable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Impeachment is a part of the Constitution. Clearly the founding fathers wanted a way to to hold Presidents accountable.

When they commit a high crime or misdemeanor, sure.
Pissing off the opposition with your simple existence? Not so much.

 

[busybee01]

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?

You make that a blank statement.

The Legislative branch has the authority to remove a sitting President -- for cause.

Or do you think they can just say, "Today we feel like impeaching the President" and adhere to no standard cause?

That would amount to what the OP is stating. It is a veto of the people.

The Congress decides what a high crime and misdemeanor is. There does not have to be a statute.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

You make that a blank statement.
The Legislative branch has the authority to remove a sitting President -- for cause.
Or do you think they can just say, "Today we feel like impeaching the President" and adhere to no standard cause?
That would amount to what the OP is stating. It is a veto of the people.

The Congress decides what a high crime and misdemeanor is. There does not have to be a statute.

Why did they include"high crimes and misdemeanors" as part of the constitution if they meant "whatever reason Congress cares to give"?