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

[BlindBoo]

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.

If "Pissing off the opposition with your simple existence" were a valid reason, he would have been impeached already don't you think.


Using US aid as leverage to force a foreign nation to "Play Ball" and research dirt on a very specific domestic political opponent, is more than just being pissed at his existence.

 

[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.

If "Pissing off the opposition with your simple existence" were a valid reason, he would have been impeached already don't you think.

The only thing stopping them is them.

Using US aid as leverage to force a foreign nation to "Play Ball" and research dirt on a very specific domestic political opponent, is more than just being pissed at his existence.

I agree - and if Biden wins in 2020, he should be impeached for it.
What's that have to do with Trump?

 

[jwoodie]

To state the obvious: The Democrats have been searching for a pretext to impeach the President since the day after his election. After failing for almost three years, they have now latched on to an otherwise routine phone call which might be considered inappropriate only because of an upcoming Presidential election that is still more than a year away.

This is no more an impeachable offense than jaywalking. If impeachment is nothing more than a legislative referendum, why not dispense with these Congressional witch hunts and just take a yes or no vote?

 

[M14 Shooter]

To state the obvious: The Democrats have been searching for a pretext to impeach the President since the day after his election. After failing for almost three years, they have now latched on to an otherwise routine phone call which might be considered inappropriate due to an upcoming Presidential election that is still more than a year away.
This is no more an impeachable offense than jaywalking. If impeachment is nothing more than a legislative referendum, why not dispense with these Congressional witch hunts and just take a yes or no vote?

As with the Mueller fiasco, Pelosi and the Democrats have to "educate" - that is, repeat their lies over and over - the American people as to what happened, so they will get behind the impeachment.

 

[Staidhup]

What has to be understood is that we have now entered into the era of the majority that controls Congress can impeach because they don’t like who the people elected as President. A very dangerous precedent unless of course one subscribes to the parliamentary system.

 

[WEATHER53]

Congress is not an investigative body. If they see wrong, they try and fix it. They don’t go around trying to conjour up witch hunt material.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress is not an investigative body. If they see wrong, they try and fix it. They don’t go around trying to conjour up witch hunt material.

It does when Democrats are in charge.

 

[Staidhup]

Now they are legitimizing their proceedings with someone said, who told someone, who told me that someone did something wrong? Here’s a strange, rather distant for some, concept, where’s the evidence? If this is in fact the case why wasn’t Obama impeached for his open mic comment about “wait until after the election”. I am sure there was someone, who could tell someone, who told someone else, who told an aide to a congressman that Obama was planning on compromising American security. Well gents you run with that and see how far you get.

 

[WEATHER53]

Just getting to media that little black girl hair cut was a lie. Congress should have launched an investigation into Trump’s role. Do Democrat politicians EVER seek the truth or accept it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Yes, the Constitution really does give Congress the ability to remove a sitting President from office, and it's no good pretending that impeachment as an institution is somehow illegitimate. The only reason it amounts to a "veto power" is because we the people have become lazy and apathetic and allowed Congress to take our power into their own hands for their own purposes, instead of keeping our boots on their necks and making them work for us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Are you prepared to amend the Constitution to that effect, and leave the American people no recourse to remove a President who's insane, or terrible at his job? Because that's certainly not what it says now, for good reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, that's on us for letting our politicians get out of control and start thinking our government is there for their own personal aggrandizement, isn't it?

 

[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.

Well, that's on us for letting our politicians get out of control and start thinking our government is there for their own personal aggrandizement, isn't it?

Agreed. We get the gov't we deserve, not the one we wish for.

 

[my2¢]

The House counts the electoral votes and if nobody gets a majority of votes, the House is responsible for selecting a president. So in a certain circumstance they get to make the choice but don't ever get to veto one.

 

[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.

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

BUT, there has to be a standard, no?

Otherwise, they just impeach because the other side is in power. If that were the case, the very next Democrat President that has a Republican-controlled house will be impeached. Just for being a democrat.

 

[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?

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.

BUT, there has to be a standard, no?

Otherwise, they just impeach because the other side is in power. If that were the case, the very next Democrat President that has a Republican-controlled house will be impeached. Just for being a democrat.

In 200+ years it has happen twice so far. Neither one were convicted either. Even if the Dems impeach Trumpybear, his party of faithful will not convict him over attempting to shake down the Ukraine president. They too would benefit from the Trumpybears Bully Pulpit, declaring, without evidence, that his opponent is under investigation and must be guilty. ( I mean the fucking morons fell for it the first time.) No way no how, unless some more damning facts come out about the conspiracy to shake them down come out, it will be up to the American people to tell Trumpybear, you're fired.

 

[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.

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

BUT, there has to be a standard, no?

Otherwise, they just impeach because the other side is in power. If that were the case, the very next Democrat President that has a Republican-controlled house will be impeached. Just for being a democrat.

In 200+ years it has happen twice so far. Neither one were convicted either. Even if the Dems impeach Trumpybear, his party of faithful will not convict him over attempting to shake down the Ukraine president. They too would benefit from the Trumpybears Bully Pulpit, declaring, without evidence, that his opponent is under investigation and must be guilty. ( I mean the fucking morons fell for it the first time.) No way no how, unless some more damning facts come out about the conspiracy to shake them down come out, it will be up to the American people to tell Trumpybear, you're fired.

That is the problem faced by the modern Democrats.

There was no shakedown and now they have this impeachment thing hung around their necks.

I personally am pulling for an impeachment vote. This will then lead to a trial in which the deep state, the Clinton campaign, and many of the media will be under the gun to sit in a formal prosecutorial question and answer procedure with the same authority as a Judicial trial.

The White House will finally have the full authority to ask, under oath, questions of anyone they wish. As I said in another thread, prosecutors and lawyers in D.C. (of which Giuliani is one) just love handing out immunity clauses like candy. When that begins, and some of the guilty Democrats start taking advantage of that 'get out of jail free card', the others will panic and start eating each other alive.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Are you prepared to amend the Constitution to that effect, and leave the American people no recourse to remove a President who's insane, or terrible at his job? Because that's certainly not what it says now, for good reason.

Insane or terrible at his job is too subjective in most cases.
The level of criminal action has to be fairly high before a president should be removed from office, since it is actually congress that is supposed to be making all the decisions anyway.
He has to be acting contrary to what those who elected him wanted and expected him to do.

This current incident is not a valid impeachment offense because there is on way to prove whether or not the investigation of Biden's son in the Ukraine was a valid presidential exercise or not.
And all past impeachments, such as Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton clearly were wrong.
It is hard to imagine when impeachment could ever be right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

BUT, there has to be a standard, no?

Otherwise, they just impeach because the other side is in power. If that were the case, the very next Democrat President that has a Republican-controlled house will be impeached. Just for being a democrat.

Of course there's a standard. "High crimes and misdemeanors" has an actual meaning. However, it's up to us, the People, to make Congress observe that standard and provide sufficient proof to us that impeachment is warranted.

If we let politicians get away with behaving like contestants on a reality show because we want to be entertained more than we want serious, functional government, then we deserve whatever we get.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

BUT, there has to be a standard, no?

Otherwise, they just impeach because the other side is in power. If that were the case, the very next Democrat President that has a Republican-controlled house will be impeached. Just for being a democrat.

Of course there's a standard. "High crimes and misdemeanors" has an actual meaning. However, it's up to us, the People, to make Congress observe that standard and provide sufficient proof to us that impeachment is warranted.

If we let politicians get away with behaving like contestants on a reality show because we want to be entertained more than we want serious, functional government, then we deserve whatever we get.

But no liking, agreeing, or being suspicious of a president is not enough.
For example, with the Biden/Ukraine deal, regardless of how suspicious the phone call could be, it is not at all criminal because a president is supposed to investigate if someone were to be doing some wrong with all that US money being sent to the Ukraine.

There is no standard because it is impossible to anticipate all the possible circumstances.
It is relying on the good sense of responsible people.
And impeachment is almost always wrong.
It was wrong with Andrew Jackson, and wrong with Bill Clinton.
It is impossible to impeach without those doing it looking bad, unless there is an obvious smoking gun everyone can agree on.
This is not a where 51% is sufficient, but where 99% should agree before you impeach.
And I don't mean Congress, but the population as a whole, whom Congress is supposed to represent.