I think you (and most everybody) are over-reading the impeachment clauses. That said, I expect Trump to refuse to leave office regardless of the reason other than death. I also expect that he'll be forced out, but that he'll encourage his more lunatic supporters to resist.
 

"torn to shreds by lawyers from both parties."

It's not as though it was news that there were lawyers in both parties who hate Trump. Is it being "torn to shreds" by anybody who wasn't already unambiguously opposed to Trump? Such an "admission against interest" would be rather more persuasive than attacks from people already known for their hostility to him.

Simple question: Since it would destroy all Trump's complaints, why doesn't Pelosi just hold that vote to conduct an inquiry, instead of proceeding in this informal manner?

Anyway, should this reach the Senate, (It can't without a vote Pelosi would be reluctant to hold.) it seems more likely that it will be the Democrats whining, since the Senate is run by Republicans.
 

I don't know how much "overreading" Mark Field thinks is happening -- I was sympathetic to Justice White's concurrence in Walter Nixon v. U.S., but that is where we are. The clauses at least give broad discretion to both houses in their roles and under White's test, I am not aware of some impeachment where the basics of due process was actually violated.

It would be sensible to think the Trump will call foul with how the Senate trial would go, including how Chief Justice Roberts handles things. It is not a novel approach to call the body in question proceeding against you in effect illegitimate, the reasonableness of the claim notwithstanding. Especially if you don't have that much more.

We can say this, like multiple people who don't "unambiguously oppose" Trump have explained the letter is bogus, objectively above the fray. People who oppose his impeachment etc. think the letter is bogus. People who strongly find variously things he does or argue aren't all out to get him.

It is silly to think that if the Democrats somehow give in it will "destroy all Trump's complaints" since simply voting for an inquiry by the full House (1) is not the only complaint (2) it is fatuous to think this is all somehow in good faith and something else will be raised. Again, objectively, why would they "give in"? It would be stupid. They cannot suddenly say the Dems were "legitimate" or something.

There are rules in place now. It is not merely "informal." The rules might not to the liking of the Trump Administration, but the House gets to set the rules. I personally think there is some overall sense of reasonableness that should be going on at least to make it legitimate. We have been over this in the past regarding the Kavanaugh confirmation process etc. But, that basic rule in occurring. See, e.g., replies in last thread.

Finally, I do think eventually there will be an impeachment vote and once the Senate trial does occur, the House still has managers and it is presided over by Chief Justice Roberts. I do expect some pushback by Democrats (so-called "whining") since we already saw the "reasonableness" of the Mitch McConnell led Senate. But, given Trump's m.o., I'm sure he will find something wrong with it too. He complains about being mistreated by Fox News.
 

"We can say this, like multiple people who don't "unambiguously oppose" Trump have explained the letter is bogus,"

Well, sure, you can say that, but who are they? I haven't seen a statement declaring it bogus from anybody I didn't already know was opposed to Trump.
 

Gerard: If an impeachment proceeding in the House can be unconstitutional as the President claims, then why can't he say the same about the Senate trial?

Indeed.

Lets review the arguments the White House letter offered to the House and how they may apply to the Senate:

(1) The House cannot act without a vote of its members.

This is self evident. Article I grants all powers to the House collectively and none to individual members.

No one is disputing that the House must vote to impeach a POTUS. Why would a vote not be required to initiate impeachment proceedings and investigation?

Of course, the House may enact rules for impeachment which could theoretically delegate initiation and investigation authority to committees or even individual leaders, but the House has not enacted such rules.

(2) The POTUS enjoys basic due process rights during impeachment proceedings.

Amendment V: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Is anyone seriously arguing that the POTUS and the people who elected him do not have a fundamental interest in seeing the POTUS serves out his appointed term of office or that Congress (or on this case a handful of opposition party leaders) may deny the POTUS and the people the most basic due process during an impeachment proceeding?

The counter argument that the impeachment clause is silent about votes, rules and due process is a red herring which does not change the basic constitutional law above. Such an argument is not "tearing the White House letter to shreds," but rather is an affront to the Constitution.

And, yes, the same rules apply to the Senate during an Impeachment trial.
 

I'm being deliberately vague because I don't want to offer arguments to the other side which they haven't thought of. I'll say this: I think that standards of due process do and should apply to impeachment, but that not much process is "due" in the indictment phase. In fact, having the House serve as a quasi-grand jury pretty much *is* the due process. There isn't any beyond that, short of fraud.

The complaints about a pre-vote are meritless and made in bad faith anyway.
 

"The House cannot act without a vote of its members."

This is silly. The House is given the sole power of impeachment and the House makes it's own rules. This is the usual a-textual nonsense from Bircher Bart.

"The POTUS enjoys basic due process rights during impeachment proceedings."

This is also nonsense (Bircher Bart is really grasping at straws here). Impeachment is a political event, the House is delegated plenary powers there. They could have a monkey spin a wheel to determine to impeach if they wanted, it's for the voters to judge that kind of thing.
 

I'm a Republican, so I won't argue the merits with you, but I will say this: I think it's an enormous mistake to to try to impeach Trump on the basis of one event alone, particularly when there are others available. A lawyer makes the best case s/he can. If you run into the kind of situation you are describing because Trump is simply irrational, that is one thing. If you run into it because you did not yourselves make the strongest case that you could, I think you will share the blame.
 

We need to address some propagandist nonsense from Birchers Bart and Brett from the last thread, where they compared the investigation into the Trump campaign team with this lawless abuse of office of Trump in prodding a foreign government to single out his leading political opponent for investigations.

Paul Manafort was a well known stooge of pro-Kremlin interests (Anne Applebaum, no liberal, wrote an aghast column when Trump named him to the campaign as manager). He was under investigation, *not by order of President Obama* but by the normal, career, professionals of federal law enforcement for *years* before Trump ran for President. Manafort and his associate Gates were not convicted of failing to list as lobbyists, while they were, *by their own concession* literal *foreign agents,* they were convicted for many counts of money laundering, tax evasion and related subterfuges for their work for said pro-Kremlin stooges.

Carter Page was also known to have Kremlin ties. He served as an advisor to the Kremlin at summits and ties to Russian intelligence. As such he was the target of FISA warrant, applied for again via the normal law enforcement channels of career officials, *years before Trump ran for President.*

George Papadopoulos was indeed a Trump campaign official when he told an Australian diplomat about his contacts with Russian sources claiming to have 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton. The diplomat forwarded the information to the regularly constituted law enforcement officials of the US.

Notice how different this is from what Trump did! A pre-existing investigation of people Trump added to his campaign was allowed to continue. Obama, who was notified and by all accounts ok'd the investigation going on discreetly never released the information for political gain for his party (he certainly could have prior to the election).

On the other hand we have Trump personally using his diplomats, his personal lawyer and the AG (interchangeably interestingly enough!), and his meetings as head of state with other world leaders to single out his chief political opponent for re-opening closed investigations. The impropriety is palpable.
 

""The House cannot act without a vote of its members."

This is silly. The House is given the sole power of impeachment and the House makes it's own rules."

I don't see the contradiction here: The house makes its own rules. It makes them by voting. If it hasn't voted to make rules saying that the Speaker can initiate an impeachment inquiry by her own fiat, then the fact that it hypothetically could do so is irrelevant.
 

BD: "The House cannot act without a vote of its members."

Mr. W: This is silly. The House is given the sole power of impeachment and the House makes it's own rules."

Good God, I would have expected you had at least seen Sesame Street civics lessons.

The House may only exercise its powers (plenary or otherwise) by a vote of its members. This includes enacting rules for impeachment and all other House proceedings.
 

"The House may only exercise its powers (plenary or otherwise) by a vote of its members. "

And where is that in the text of the Constitution? You're just making stuff up in your desperation to defend this corrupt President.

" I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters"
 

"It makes them by voting. "

The House has already made rules by voting that allow what's going on....By vote they've set up the leadership, committees, etc., that are acting.

This is like saying the Hastert rule was unconstitutional.
 

Mr. W:

Outside of the star chamber of your mind, travel to and doing business with a foreign country with whom we are at peace does not make you a foreign agent against the United States. To call this McCartyite nonsense would be an insult to Joe McCarthy, who at least properly defined what it meant to be a foreign agent for Soviet intelligence.

Next, the Manifort and Gates indictment, which you have clearly not read, states: Defendants PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., (MANAFORT) and RICHARD W. GATES Ill (GATES) served for years as political consultants and lobbyists. Between at least 2006 and 2015, MANAFORT and GATES acted as unregistered agents ofthe Government ofUkraine, the Party of Regions (a Ukrainian political party whose leader Victor Yanukovych was President from 2010 to 2014), Yanukovych, and the Opposition Bloc (a successor to the Party of Regions that formed in 2014 when Yanukovych fled to Russia).

That's it.

There is no allegation or evidence Manafort, Gates or any other target of this spy operations ever acted as foreign agents against the United States.

You can stop lying any time now.
 

"Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Notice the plenary grant of Rules of proceedings, whereas the Impeachment clause lists no qualifications. Notice too that when it wants to the Constitution can spell out that a vote is required (it does not with impeachment).

A-textual nonsense from our Birchers.

More a-textual nonsense is Bircher Bart's absurd claim that Article V applies to impeachment. Apart from the fact that impeachment is a political event which the House is granted sole power over, POTUS's life and liberty is not at stake and he the office of President is not his 'property' (though he may think so!). Never has SCOTUS ruled, for example, that impeachment proceedings must meet the requirements of, say, the IVth, Vth, VIth (or heck, why not) the VIIIth Amendment.

As can be expected of Birchers, we are seeing spun on the spot wacky con law theory in the service of principals, not principles.
 

Note that you're making excuses for not respecting due process, and for the dictatorial power of House Speakers to act without holding votes.

With every month the mask slips a bit more, as Trump's foes find they have to burn through one norm after another to go after him.
 

Lol, Bircher Bart, Manafort and Gates *themselves* registered as literal foreign agents!

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/27/manafort-foreign-agent-ukraine-240027

"The indictment against Manafort and Rick Gates charged them with engaging in a conspiracy against the United States,[19][171] engaging in a conspiracy to launder money,[19][171] failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts,[19][171] acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal,[19][171] making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA),[19][171] and making false statements.[19][171] Prosecutors claimed Manafort laundered more than $18 million, money he had received as compensation for lobbying and consulting services for pro-Russian, former Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovych."

"On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States."

"On August 21, the jury found Manafort guilty on eight of the eighteen charges,"

"On September 14, 2018, Manafort entered into a plea deal with prosecutors and pleaded guilty to two charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering."

Let's contrast this with Bircher Bart's description of Manafort's case last thread: "The Mueller indictments merely alleged two Friends of Donald failed to register as perfectly legal foreign lobbyists in side businesses"

Conspiracy theorists and propagandists always misrepresent the truth in the sloppiest, grossest, most dishonest ways.
 

"for the dictatorial power of House Speakers to act without holding votes."

Oh, that's ridiculous. The House and Senate have always had the power to set their own rules. Impeachment has always been a political event. If people don't like what the House does they can register that at the next election. There's nothing dictatorial about it (unlike, say, a head of state secretly using their office to prod foreign governments to attack political opponents).
 

"as Trump's foes find they have to burn through one norm after another to go after him."

And this is rich. Trump thrives and revels in breaking norms, and now Brett clutches those pearls. You're totally discredited here, Bircher. Give it up.
 

BD: "The House may only exercise its powers (plenary or otherwise) by a vote of its members. "

Mr. W: And where is that in the text of the Constitution? You're just making stuff up in your desperation to defend this corrupt President.

Really?

Go count the number of times the word "vote" is used in the Constitution.

How else do propose that members of the House exercise their collective power?

Mr. W: The House has already made rules by voting that allow what's going on....By vote they've set up the leadership, committees, etc., that are acting.

Here are the House Rules which you have not read.

The House has not enacted rules concerning impeachment proceedings.

Now stop lying.

This is like saying the Hastert rule was unconstitutional.

Clueless analogy. The "Hastert rule" was never a rule of the House, but rather a term referring to how Hastert chose to exercise his powers granted by actual rules of the House.
 

"Go count the number of times the word "vote" is used in the Constitution."

I don't see it at all in the impeachment clause. Is it in the XIIth Amendment?

Lol, a-textual nonsense.

"The House has not enacted rules concerning impeachment proceedings."

The House has rules about the powers of the Speaker, majority, committees, etc.,. And, they get to police their own rules! You lose, Bircher.
 

Mr. W: More a-textual nonsense is Bircher Bart's absurd claim that Article V applies to impeachment.

Go read the White House letter which is the subject of this discussion, specifically the last paragragh of page 3 and notes 8 and 9 and get a damned clue.

 

"Note that you're making excuses for not respecting due process"

Your assertion would be more plausible if you could show by analogy to grand jury proceedings the failure of "due process" here.

Just a little note to help you out: the phrase "due process" does not mean that the full panoply of due process rights in a criminal trial must be applied in every proceeding. To paraphrase the Court, "due process" means only the process due *under the circumstances*. You can't just repeat the phrase like a mantra, you need to make a showing. The fact that you're substituting a mantra for actual analysis demonstrates that you don't have anything else.
 

Slogans (mantras) are the stock and trade of propagandists.
 

"Go read the White House letter which is the subject of this discussion, specifically the last paragragh of page 3 and notes 8 and 9 and get a damned clue."

Does it describe where the WMDs are Bircher Bart? Lol.
 

"Never has SCOTUS ruled, for example, that impeachment proceedings must meet the requirements of, say, the IVth, Vth, VIth (or heck, why not) the VIIIth Amendment."

Let's not fail to press the advantage. Birchers throw stuff against the wall and then run, not sticking around to see what sticks (though hoping something does). Answer Bircher Bart, when has SCOTUS ever ruled that impeachment proceedings must meet the requirements of, say, the IVth, Vth, VIth (or heck, why not) the VIIIth Amendment?
 

Brett: Note that you're making excuses for not respecting due process, and for the dictatorial power of House Speakers to act without holding votes.

Mr. W: Oh, that's ridiculous. The House and Senate have always had the power to set their own rules.

What part of the difference between the House and a single member of the House escapes you?

Article I grants all powers to "the House or Representatives."

The Constitution grants no power to a single member of the House apart from a single vote.

The House has not delegated its powers to conduct impeachment proceeding to any single member or committees of the House through the rules because the House has always retained that power to itself by voting on resolutions to begin impeachment proceedings.
 

Ridiculous. The House is granted sole power here and it may set it's own, non-justiacible rules. This is desperation, admit it.
 

I'm a Republican, so I won't argue the merits with you, but I will say this: I think it's an enormous mistake to to try to impeach Trump on the basis of one event alone, particularly when there are others available.

I don't think the Ukraine matter is "one event" as a whole at this point, especially adding in obstruction counts, but I agree. It's useful as a hook, since people think of it as particularly blatant. Still, the impeachment counts should go beyond it, including since a limited impeachment provides an easier target for the defense akin to guarding a team near the goal line.

As to Brett, I don't know what sort of True Scotsman response will satisfy. You already moved the goalposts from "unambiguously opposed" to "opposed." The basic idea that the House power is plenary isn't a novel argument. Conservative supporters of Trump readily agreed with it before now. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion in Walter Nixon v. U.S. after all holding the process is left to Congress. The justices suggesting some more limits were Justices White, Blackmun and Souter.

Thanks for the answer, Mark.
 

Here is a CRS Report on the impeachment process:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

As discussed, there are various formal rules in place regarding the process with specific procedures further passed upon by the House as deemed necessary. The Clinton impeachment, e.g., directly was tied to the Starr investigation. Flexibility here is good constitutional policy given the range of things that might arise, including regarding specific actors and events. It is not a novel concept generally (see, e.g., conservative leaning Orin Kerr thinking the Fourth Amendment allows dealing with the overall situation when determining "reasonableness").

There are also rules in place for investigations generally in specific committees, which was the subject of a court of appeals ruling handed down today.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1trAO6IWcy-WZlVQJTzZFUz1551RIwe7w/view

One might find this unfair in some fashion, but it is longheld practice (and appropriate imho, fwiw) and selectively targeting the current party in control of the House is selective, if far from surprising.
 

For those who refuse to follow links to read the primary materials, here is the pertinent parts of the CRS Report executive summary concerning how then House begins impeachment proceedings:

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

Under the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to formally charge a federal officer with wrongdoing, a process known as impeachment. The House impeaches an individual when a majority agrees to a House resolution containing explanations of the charges. The explanations in the resolution are referred to as “articles of impeachment.” After the House agrees to impeach an officer, the role of the Senate is to conduct a trial to determine whether the charged individual should be removed from office. Removal requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.

Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.

Impeachment proceedings could also be initiated by a Member on the floor. A Member can offer an impeachment resolution as a “Question of the Privileges of the House.” The House, when it considers a resolution called up this way, might immediately vote to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, leaving the resolution in the same status as if it had been submitted through the hopper. Alternatively, the House might vote to table the impeachment resolution. The House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.

Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry....
 

Never has SCOTUS ruled, for example, that impeachment proceedings must meet the requirements of, say, the IVth, Vth, VIth (or heck, why not) the VIIIth Amendment.

Yes, it in fact decided quite the opposite.

Here is a discussion of a 1790s precedent where the matter arose and Senate discretion was upheld with Madison going along with the majority.

https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=mlr

It only addressed a specific matter and use of torture, e.g., during impeachment is not necessarily legitimate now because of it or something. But, it's informative.
 

I think the most troubling thing about, not just this impeachment farce, but the last several years taken as a whole, has been watching the left abandon even the pretense of caring about procedural justice, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the accused to confront their accuser. Every last protection that stands between the accused and the power of government.

What had been a gradual erosion has turned into a swift repudiation.

I fully expect, should Trump fail to be convicted in the Senate, that no small faction on the left will embrace assassination as the only just response. Particularly if he gets reelected next year. It's really the only step left, and more than hints of it are obvious in the left's treatment of Antifa violence.
 

Is anyone seriously arguing that the POTUS and the people who elected him do not have a fundamental interest in seeing the POTUS serves out his appointed term of office or that Congress

What kind of interest? Is it a property right? Does the President have a property right in the presidency? Is it a liberty interest? It isn't a life interest, right?

And since when does the President have standing to assert the claimed interests of the voters?
 

I think that standards of due process do and should apply to impeachment

The only thing that matters is what the courts think, not what you or Bart thinks.
 

Your assertion would be more plausible if you could show by analogy to grand jury proceedings the failure of "due process" here.

The House is not a Grand Jury. It is a group of interested politicians, not disinterested jurors.

This is the entire problem with this BS of turning impeachment into some sort of legalistic proceeding. It's a political proceeding! If the Constitution called for a political proceeding, it wouldn't be delegated to the Congress!

The House has no obligation to adhere to Grand Jury rules. These proceedings can be set up any way the House wants to, and if they are unfair, the President can appeal to the public to pressure members of Congress to vote against impeachment regardless of the evidence.
 

Dilan, WRT to your "it only matters what the courts think." -- no, in the case of impeachment, it only matters what the House and Senate, representing the electorate, thinks. In fact, if the Executive interferes in the process of impeachment, no matter how managed, as long as it is done within whatever rules the House and Senate determine, whether by default (allowing the officers of said bodies to decide) or by votes and regular order, it should be another count for impeachment. As it would be if the SCOTUS injects itself into the process.

(It not being a legal matter, I'm not sticking to lurking on this.)

None of this has anything to do with the outcome.

 

Dilan:

Both the liberty and property interest would likely apply to a POTUS completing their term.

I am unsure whether a court would allow the POTUS to demand due process rights on behalf of the voters, but his attorneys damned well should offer the argument.

Finally, impeachment is a hybrid of the legal and political. The accused should have due process under both.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"WRT to your "it only matters what the courts think." -- no, in the case of impeachment, it only matters what the House and Senate, representing the electorate, thinks."

I think this is the logical consequence of the standard view of impeachment proceedings.
 

It matters that the courts think that Mark's and Bart's view of the constraints on the House is wrong.

Which means, in the end, that it only matters what the House and Senate think in terms of impeachment procedure.

Having said that, I really don't get what the due process is supposed to be? POTUSes have a TON of due process, in the form of that 67 votes in the Senate requirement. That's truly difficult to attain!

And I would argue that supermajority requirement is literally all you need to protect any due process interest you think the President should have. Because if the House is unfair, the President can go to the Senate, argue the House was unfair, and get acquitted!

I really think there's a desire among way, way, WAY too many people, especially lawyers, to have law and courts and legal procedures intrude on everything. There are large segments of the world who are truly better off if my profession minds its own business. The political world, in the main, is one example of this. Bush v. Gore was one of the great outrages in my lifetime, and it happened because nobody on the Supreme Court-- NOBODY-- had the balls to say "this is none of our fricking business, you guys are litigating a political lawsuit, now go to the Florida legislature and the House and litigate it there, and don't ever come back here with this BS". (Well, of course, the order would have really said the petition for certiorari was granted and the case was ordered dismissed pursuant to the political question doctrine, but you get the idea.)

We have legal challenges to the results of NFL playoff games, legal challenges to the rules of golf, legal challenges to the NFL commissioner's decisions to suspend cheating players. JFC! Law and lawyers aren't the salvation to everything. We make a lot of things worse. A LOT of things.

And one of the things that we make worse is impeachment. The Constitution is full of a lot of utter racist garbage, but the impeachment clause is pretty damned elegant, I have to admit. No rules other than a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, and some guidance in the form of the "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" language. That's it. The rest is totally up to the political process. No courts, no lawyers. As Ford says, whatever a majority of the House says is impeachable is impeachable.

The elegance of that is that it basically ensure that a President will be impeached only when there's a popular mandate to remove a President. In that situation, it will be demanded. In other situations, the effort will fail and we go on to the next election. It's perfect.

But so many of my profession can't resist, and I am ashamed of it. We can't resist believing that you can solve law with politics. That everything will just happen in a principled fashion if we stick our noses where they don't belong and impose some external due process standards.

Sorry, we need to be more humble. Let the Congress do its work. Let the White House put up whatever fight it is going to put up. And let the people decide.
 

Mark:

The Democrat impeachment circus will certainly drag into the general election year where both the Dem House and POTUS are up for reelection. The voters will have a disproportionate influence on this round.

NPR anchor was irritated today after breathlessly reporting the latest impeachment non-news only to have the politics reporter pour cold water on the segment by relaying news that the voters gave their GOP reps an earful back home and told them to start fighting back a day after Trump set a crowd record in Minnesota roaring to the Donald ragging on the impeachment circus.
 

I suggest you buy a kitchen hood guide because it is very important to buy a proper kitchen hood.
من به شما راهنمای خرید هود آشپزخانه را پیشنهاد میکنم زیرا اینکه بخواهید یک هود آشپزخانه مناسب را خرید نمایید نکته بسیار پر اهمیتی است

راهنمای خرید هود آشپزخانه

فروشگاه لوکس
 

Fact-checking Bart: To give some perspective, the Lynx (local WNBA team) had a crowd of over 17,000 to watch them lose in July, and the crowd was 20,412 for a Timberwolves-Warriors game in March of 2017. Target Center only has a 20,000 capacity, so even full it represents a drop in the bucket for Minnesota. The suburbs of Minneapolis and Saint Paul (which suburbs skew heavily Republican, as they do around virtually every large city in the country) contain well over a million people.

Further, no actual crowd count was performed, so the exact number of attendees is not known. The venue, which is relatively limited (other venues in the area hold far more) was full. That's what can be said with accuracy.

Calling the crowd size a "record" therefore appears to be more of the usual, thoughtless self-aggrandizement on the part of wishful-thinking Trump supporters.


 

Dilan: It matters that the courts think that Mark's and Bart's view of the constraints on the House is wrong.

Which constraints? Votes? Due process?

If you are speaking of the split DDC ruling where the Clinton and Obama appointees overruled the Trump appointee, that abdication of responsibility should go to the Supreme Court.

I really don't get what the due process is supposed to be? POTUSes have a TON of due process, in the form of that 67 votes in the Senate requirement.

This is like claiming a secret criminal trial conducted by only enemies of the defendant, where the defendant and his attorney are not present, offering secret witnesses who are not subject to cross examination has a TON of due process so long as there is a jury, half of which is made up of the defendant's enemies.

Bush v. Gore was one of the great outrages in my lifetime, and it happened because nobody on the Supreme Court-- NOBODY-- had the balls to say "this is none of our fricking business, you guys are litigating a political lawsuit, now go to the Florida legislature and the House and litigate it there, and don't ever come back here with this BS".

A conservative minority properly did just that, telling the Florida Supreme Court they had no jurisdiction over this and upholding the certification of the election.
 

Blogger C2H5OH said...Fact-checking Bart: To give some perspective, the Lynx (local WNBA team) had a crowd of over 17,000 to watch them lose in July, and the crowd was 20,412 for a Timberwolves-Warriors game in March of 2017. Target Center only has a 20,000 capacity, so even full it represents a drop in the bucket for Minnesota.

To start, I am discussing political rallies.

Trump routinely draws overflow crowds. During the Minn rally, 20,000 in the stadium, 25,000 watching TVs outside.
 

Bart, nice goal-post moving, there. But in 2009 President Obama packed Target Center for a political speech about Health Care. Lines stretched for blocks with people waiting to get in. The claim of a "record" appears to come only from the Trump campaign. If that's where you get your "news", then you may be misled.
 

C2H5OH:

No question. Obama packed them in as well. But I don't think his people claimed 45,000.
 

No Bart, impeachment is a process where you have a partial "jury" with more than a third of the "defendant's" partial supporters, and a supermajority requirement, plus no rules permitting jury nullification or arguments that there were legal errors in the process. Plus the defendant can never be arrested and mistreated in custody.

And in THAT kind of system, defendants would get tons of due process.
 

And Bart, Bush v. Gore DID NOT do that. It ordered Florida to stop a recount. That's deciding the case on the merits.

Only the Florida Legislature or the House can disregard recount results. The USSC should have had no jurisdiction to make that order. But ALL NINE said they did, because lawyers think they are the saviors for everything.
 

I meant no rules prohibiting, not no rules permitting.
 

Dilan:

The issue in Bush V. Gore was the actions of the Democrat majority on the Florida Supreme Court. The conservative majority to which I referred was the Renquist concurrence. There was no need for the per curium EPC opinion. The Supremes should have reversed the Democrat majority on the Florida Supreme Court for placing itself in the shoes of the Florida Legislature to pick electors in violation of the US Constitution. This would have led to your correct result.
 

Bart, it's only the Trump operation that really cares to boast about crowd sizes.

Apropos of the original blog entry, those claims about crowd sizes, no matter how inane and inflated, are based on WAG methodology. Please note, that crowd outside the Center was composed largely of thousands of *anti*-Trump protesters. Counting them in the "support" crowd as the Trump campaign does, and you echo, is a lie.

But it appears to be an attempt to bolster the idea that, if Trump is impeached, there will be an uprising. In other words, it's an attempt to threaten the political process supported (so recent polls say) by a majority by a screeching minority.

Is that really how this country is supposed to operate?
 

Dilan's appeal to modesty is appreciated though some at certain places might find it a tad ironic.

Mark notes the practical in a recent comment and this includes that the public generally accepts the findings of the courts on constitutional meaning. As Jack Balkin and others have noted, what is "legitimate" here can significantly change over time.

A minority of judges in the late 1980s and early 1990s thought there was some limited role at least for the courts. It was possible -- especially if some really blatant example came up as these things go -- for them to have had a majority. Didn't happen but if judges determine otherwise, it would "matter." In part, because congressional action here would factor in the reality of the acceptance of court judgments to some degree.

Note that even the three justices in Walter Nixon v. U.S. didn't think it would often be the case that a trial in the Senate would be unconstitutional. The concern of the camel's nose here is noted; see, e.g., how even piercing the privacy of the jury room to deal with racism discrimination was in a recent Supreme Court case quite controversial.

But, the Constitution in general at the very least gives Congress WIDE discretion here and in various ways (including rules in place as set forth in each houses' procedures, a two-tier impeachment/removal process, the latter with a supermajority vote, limited categories that over history guarded against mere use of "no confidence" or "we don't like how that judge rules" judgment calls, public pressures, Chief Justice presiding, hearings repeatedly in the open, media coverage, etc.) a range of checks are in place.

The comment claiming here and elsewhere procedural safeguards have been ignored is on that level absurd, especially as the people challenged go to courts to make their cases.
 

No Bart, the Supreme Court decided the election. If the House or the Florida Legislature wanted to decide the recount was illegal, that was THEIR call. The Supreme Court should have let that process play out.

They stopped that recount to avoid embarrassing Bush. Scalia even said it.
 

Joe:

A minority of judges in the 1930's thought the New Deal was unconstitutional too.

In both cases, they lost, and we have binding precedents. Nixon v. United States (oh why did he have to be named Nixon?) isn't going anywhere.
 

Also, I think people should be very skeptical of anyone who promises "a limited role for courts". These cases are fun. Judges have egos. They will always claim they are being limited when they aren't. That's why you need categorical rules on political questions.
 

"But, the Constitution in general at the very least gives Congress WIDE discretion here and in various ways (including rules in place as set forth in each houses' procedures, a two-tier impeachment/removal process, the latter with a supermajority vote, limited categories that over history guarded against mere use of "no confidence" or "we don't like how that judge rules" judgment calls, public pressures, Chief Justice presiding, hearings repeatedly in the open, media coverage, etc.) a range of checks are in place."

Yeah, the current process in place clearly meets any test of due process as "fundamental fairness".
 

C2H5OH:

Political rally crowd size and how long people are willing to wait in line to see the candidate are good proxies for voter enthusiasm.

I took Obama seriously back in the day when I saw the was substantially outdrawing Clinton.

I suspect Warren will win the nomination because she is substantially out drawing the others in the primary race, apart from maybe the Bern, who is drawing from the same pool of enthusiastic Democratic socialists.

Trump is outdrawing them all because he is offering something different. The man is an entertainer whose main attraction to the GOP base and especially working class conservatives is he punches back twice as hard with no-holds barred personal attacks on the self-appointed ruling class in government and the media. Voters elected him as a giant middle finger to the Capitol. As he showed at the Minnesota rally, the Democrats' impeachment without a high crime or misdemeanor has given Trump plenty of new material.

The man is the natural result of an increasingly aristocratic mandarin class in the government and media showing contempt for the rest of the people and our cold ideological and cultural civil war.

God save our Republic.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"A minority of judges in the 1930's thought the New Deal was unconstitutional too."

A majority did so in a few cases. In a wider sense, a majority since the 19th Century ruled in such a way that didn't seem to be "going anywhere" too. Until it did. The minority viewpoint backed it up with text, history and other argument. "It's over" is a dismissive approach, especially if one respects an system of law that develops over time.

Absolute rules repeatedly fall apart upon application. Congress judges the elections of their members. But, the Supreme Court said there is a limit. As to concern for judicial humility, that was granted, but it's a common concern. An absolute bar often are less absolute in practice.

We need not be absolute here to get where we need to go. But, it's an academic enterprise too. Which is something logically in a blog that raise various hypos and wonders where they might in theory lead.
 

Absolute rules are the only rules that work when the temptation to decide fun cases based on politics is too great to resist.
 

The articles on this blog are thoughtful and learned. It’s too bad that some of the commenters are such persistent polemicists that they can’t help but belch out their views without citation to authority of any kind. I wish these comments were moderated, but I imagine someone—e.g. one BdeP—would be shrieking about his “free speech.”
 

One other thing. If we get to the point where two thirds of the Senate are willing to vote to remove Trump, no MAGA militia in the world will save him. And if we get to that point, all the putative procedural infirmities leading up to the Senate vote—which will otherwise give cover to GOP cowards such as Rubio—will matter not one whit.
 

Joeff:

Life is so much easier when you don’t have to support your beliefs and instead simply silence those who disagree or make them disappear.