Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution,
When the hell did I ever suggest that I am an expert on the real meaning of the Constitution? Or an expert on anything else? As I've said before--you just say stuff. And you seem to have this conviction that what you say is based on some obvious evidence, and it is amazing to you that the rest of us don't see the obvious truth that you do.
yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.
|
Are we supposed to assume that by saying this you are suggesting that you're an expert on the real meaning of the Constitution?
No constitutional crimes were "on the books" before they penned the Constitution. Writing the Constitution was the act that created constitutional crimes. That Constitution was the "book" in which those crimes were delineated. We are not speaking of common civil law, or criminal law, but our subject is our Federal government's constitutional law.
And the only way any laws can be added to the Constitution is by amendment.
The way the Constitution is assembled is by broad categories that encompass an indefinite range of possibilities that fall within the proper category. Impeachment of a President is instigated by the President committing an act that is within the possible range of Treason, bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is not necessary to have a massive constitutional codex of specific "crimes" which define what are High Crimes. But there must certainly be what is considered a crime no matter what decade or century the impeachment occurs. And that consideration should be bolstered by legal definitions, court decisions, legal precedent, and common or traditional practices. And a crime must not be so vague that any thing someone wants can be squeezed into its definition.
The articles of this impeachment do not fall within the range of what has been nor is now considered to be a federal constitutional High Crime or High misdemeanor. General obstruction of Congress is too vague and broad to fit. The specific obstruction charged is nullified by executive privilege. The House was not willing to wait for a decision by SCOTUS whether executive privilege can be applied. So that supposed crime has not been established. Abuse of power is also too vague and largely subject to opinion. The House's article of abuse rests specifically on the notion that there was a quid pro quo that Trump imposed on Ukraine that would benefit his reelection. But the only solid, confirmed and direct evidence is that, according to the President of Ukraine, there was no such abuse. Nor was there a reciprocal required action committed by Ukraine in order to get the money.