He is of the impression that a president could defy an impeachment conviction and just keep on presidenting under the "naw, I don't think so" provision of the Constitution.
I am certain that the Framers of the Constitution would disagree emphatically with him. I am also certain that the Framers would have regarded such presidential defiance in the face of an impeachment conviction as an "all y'all go get your guns and let's meet up at the White House with some hot tar, feathers, and a rail" moment.
We’re Just Mourning The Ice Cream TBH
35 minutes ago
5 comments:
I have been here and have at times, commented and felt concerned that I was perhaps too right wing for this blog, and afraid that I would offend, which I would not want to do. It is your blog, not mine. However, in this case, I am confident that I am not going to offend, since I stand behind you completely.
When the founders of this nation were beginning to consider just how they were going to not only set things up to govern, but also how they expected people to convey themselves in that government, one of the things that was always on their minds was the fact that they had just fought a battle against a monarchy. And they were determined that even if they were not certain how they would settle on the final makeup of a government, the one definite thing was that there was never going to be a king, in name or in stature.
That old saw about George Washington being offered the title of king was just that, an old saw. It was a very important thing that everyone was created equal. Of course, at the time, sadly, it meant that all free, white, land owning men were equal. Fortunately, we have come a long way, since then, and still have a ways to go. But we can't let any president ever, no matter who he is, no matter how much he might be liked or hated, be above the laws of our nation.
I wish that even the Republicans of both houses know this, but mostly the Senate.
I myself doubt that there will be an impeachment. The Democrats have more to lose than they do to gain by going through something like that. No matter how we might talk about how things should be, the truth is, the Senate will never move to sustain an impeachment, with the Republicans in control. And the fallout from a mess like that will likely cause a loss in 2020 for the Democrats. I think that their best bet is to try and run a candidate who has a real chance of winning. In today's reality, that will mean that it has to be someone closer to the middle than a Bernie Sanders, or some other left winger.
As a conservative, I tend to vote for conservatives,of course. But I have also voted for Democrats before. The one person running for the Democrats right now who sort of intrigues me is Tulsi Gabbard. I have watched her for a couple of years, and so far, she seems to be a person of extreme integrity, and intelligence. It will be an interesting political season, that is for sure.
Pigpen, post what you want. I do have some rules (given in the upper right of the non-mobile page and expanded upon here).
Play nice, be respectful of others and no hijacking covers most of it.
Anyone who can't tolerate differences of opinions within those parameters deserves to be offended, in my opinion.
The need to Impeach is not to convict, but to force feed Mueller’s report live and in detail to the American electorate day after day on every media platform there is and do so in the run up to Nov 2020. Nearly all of Trump's base has zero idea that the report said a single negative thing about. This was shown at Justin Amash's townhall last week.
Dershowitz used to be a good liberal defense attorney. He went off the rails and around the bend after the 9/11 attacks. His decline is really sad.
Is Dershowitz auditioning for a Supreme Court seat, should one turn up? The tactic of writing posts saying exactly what Trump needs to see certainly worked out well for Barr.
Post a Comment