Was a bill of impeachment the House’s only option?

[Supposn]

Was a bill of impeachment the House’s only option?


Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.

Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.

Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.

In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.


If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.

If each chamber’s bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dick Foster]

Was a bill of impeachment the House’s only option?


Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.

Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.

Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.

In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.


If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.

If each chamber’s bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

They could have chosen censure which the case of a presidential censure equates to an ass chewing or in this case a temper tantrum and nothing more.
If however they censure one of their own members they are restricted to floor votes only and may not undertake any other activity such as membership on any committee.

 

[Shawnee_b]

No, they could have killed themselves then they would be rid of current POTUS.

 

[JoeMoma]

Articles of impeachment are not a bill. That being said, there are other options such as censure (still not a bill).

 

[Flash]

There was no legitimate Bill of Impeachment. Only a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation.

Americans (i.e Moon Bats) were idiots to elect Democrats to office. No good ever comes of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was a bill of impeachment the House’s only option?


Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.

Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.

Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.

In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.


If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.

If each chamber’s bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.

Incorrect!
He was impeached for committing perjury and obstructing justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

 

[Supposn]

… Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress. ...Respectfully, Supposn

Incorrect!
He was impeached for committing perjury and obstructing justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

ToddsterPatriot, the suite was not the primary, but rather a secondary issue.
Refer to, Text - H.Res.611 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I’d be interested in your response to the point of my post; If each chamber’s (passed) bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Articles of impeachment are not a bill. That being said, there are other options such as censure (still not a bill).

JoeMoma, currently, excluding the bill of impeachment, I believe each congressional chamber may ignore any bills, (including a cesure bill) passed by the other chamber’s majority.

If the chamber’s members were required to individually acknowledge and respond to any bills passed by the majority of the other chamber, wouldn’t all congressional members be individually more accountable to the nation? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

… Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress. ...Respectfully, Supposn

Incorrect!
He was impeached for committing perjury and obstructing justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

ToddsterPatriot, the suite was not the primary, but rather a secondary issue.
Refer to, Text - H.Res.611 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I’d be interested in your response to the point of my post; If each chamber’s (passed) bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, the suite was not the primary, but rather a secondary issue.

In August 1998, he committed perjury in front of a grand jury while testifying in a sexual harassment case against him.

How was that perjury not the primary issue?

If each chamber’s bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Sorry, the House can't force the Senate to do anything.
The Senate can't force the House to do anything.

 

[Supposn]

… If each chamber’s bills could require the other chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?

Sorry, the House can't force the Senate to do anything.
The Senate can't force the House to do anything.

Toddsterpatriot, we agreed that perjury was an issue.
We agreed that one congressional chamber cannot usually impel the entire other chamber to both discuss and their entire chamber vote on a bill passed on to them. You can’t take two yesses as answers?

I requested your opinion upon the second point. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

They could have chosen censure which the case of a presidential censure equates to an ass chewing or in this case a temper tantrum and nothing more.
If however they censure one of their own members they are restricted to floor votes only and may not undertake any other activity such as membership on any committee.

Dick Foster, I would suppose a U.S. House censure bill that the Senate could ignore, did not to the House, seem as an appropriate option. But it’s feasible that in both the cases of presidents Clinton and Trump, if there was a censure bill that the Senate could not possibly ignore, there may not have been any impeachment bill.

In both cases the presidents were wrongfully debased themselves and their office. But to describe their actions to the extents of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” that are likely to seriously harm our nation’s current or future governments?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[JoeMoma]

Articles of impeachment are not a bill. That being said, there are other options such as censure (still not a bill).

JoeMoma, currently, excluding the bill of impeachment, I believe each congressional chamber may ignore any bills, (including a cesure bill) passed by the other chamber’s majority.

If the chamber’s members were required to individually acknowledge and respond to any bills passed by the majority of the other chamber, wouldn’t all congressional members be individually more accountable to the nation? Respectfully, Supposn

Censure is not a bill. The House can vote to censure the president, and needs no approval from the senate to do so. Likewise, the senate can vote to censure the president, and it needs no approval from the house to do so. A bill is a proposed law, which will become a law if passed by both the house and the senate and then signed by the president. Censures and impeachments are not bills on there way to become laws.

 

[Supposn]

If the chamber’s members were required to individually acknowledge and respond to any bills passed by the majority of the other chamber, wouldn’t all congressional members be individually more accountable to the nation? Respectfully, Supposn

Censure is not a bill. The House can vote to censure the president, and needs no approval from the senate to do so. Likewise, the senate can vote to censure the president, and it needs no approval from the house to do so. A bill is a proposed law, which will become a law if passed by both the house and the senate and then signed by the president. Censures and impeachments are not bills on there way to become laws.

JoeMoma, I thank you for correcting my nomenclature. You’re correct, the document is not entitled a “bill".
It’s entitled (in the case of the articles of impeachment of President Clinton), a “House Resolution of Impeachment", introduced on December 16, 1968, by the U.S. Congressional representative for Illinois sixth U.S. Congressional District, the honorable representative Henry J. Hyde.

The remainder of your post is regarding facts which I’m unaware of being contested. You have neglected or evaded answering the question addressed to you. You have no opinion in the matter? Respectfully, Supposn