Count Me In...

[rubato]

The president can fire anyone he wants

Yeah, and the Congress can choose to impeach, and the Senate can vote to remove, based on any grounds they want...

.

No Jim they can’t do it that would violate separation of powers. There can’t be three separate and co-equal branches of government if one branch can arbitrarily remove members of the other two branches without cause. The cause is laid out in the constitution: Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors have to be provable to remove a president from office. To do otherwise would risk making the constitution irrelevant. But that would not bother liberals they are so filled with hatred for Trump and his supporters that they would destroy the country to get him.

Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury the proof the of the blue dress was irrefutable, but democrats would not convict. As liberals see it there is two standard of justice one for them and one for everyone else, hypocrites.

Please consult a dictionary about the meaning of "arbitrary" before using it again. And think about what "without cause" might mean in the context of a vote of the house and senate?

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

[

Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury the proof the of the blue dress was irrefutable, but democrats would not convict. As liberals see it there is two standard of justice one for them and one for everyone else, hypocrites.

Please consult a dictionary about the meaning of "arbitrary" before using it again. And think about what "without cause" might mean in the context of a vote of the house and senate?

yrs,
rubato

"Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


It means what it says and it meant the same thing in the eighth century.

[dales]

It means what it says and it meant the same thing in the eighth century.

You mean those Injuns who lived here in the 8th century enjoyed the protections and provisions of the US Constitution?

[Joe Guy]

The constitution has been around longer than I thought. Ya learn something new everyday... I SAY YA LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY!!!

[RayThom]

... (Crime) It means what it says and it meant the same thing in the eighth century.

Old English did not sound or look like our English language today, so I doubt if the word "crime" even existed. And, if it was a word, I bet it probably had a whole different meaning compared to how we use it today.

[rubato]

Trial in the Senate is to establish two things; 1. did he do it and 2. does the act rise to the level of removal from office. No reasonable person able to put aside knee-jerk partisanship thinks that a consensual sex act with a woman in her middle 20s rose to the level of a 'high crime or misdemeanor' against the country.


English from appx the 10th century:

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.
ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned,
geong in geardum, þone god sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat
þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile. Him þæs liffrea,
wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
Beowulf wæs breme blæd wide sprang,
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,
fromum feohgiftum on fæder bearme,
þæt hine on ylde eft gewunigen
wilgesiþas, þonne wig cume,
leode gelæsten; lofdædum sceal
in mægþa gehwære man geþeon.
Him ða Scyld gewat to gescæphwile ...


So no it does not likely mean the same thing today.

yrs,
rubato

[ex-khobar Andy]

Rube - I recommend the Seamus Heaney translation.

[Burning Petard]

"a consensual sex act with a woman in her middle 20s" The question under examination in the senate was always about that very thing--can a sexual act between an intern and the president of the united states EVER be considered consensual, any more than a sexual act between a school teacher and a 15 year old student?

And to an outside observer, the process of impeachment of Clinton in the Senate never involved any "reasonable person able to put aside knee-jerk partisanship."

snailgate

[liberty]

I meant the eighteenth century and you all knew it. But my error changes nothing. For the Constitution the relevant dates are 1787 , 1788 and 1789 and I shouldn’t have to tell you why they are relevant.

[Big RR]

So liberty, who would be the arbiter there; the constitution vests full power of impeachment and removal from office with the legislature, save for the chief justice being present to decide evidentiary issues. If the USSC intervened after the Senate voted to remove, it would result in a serious constitutional crisis (one only slightly less serious than if the chief executive refused to leave office and used the military to keep him there). Likewise, if the court sought to enjoin any trial (e.g.), the Senate could just move forward, and any attempt to enforce the order by the executive (to effectively keep the president in office) would achieve the same result. the court has seen fit to refrain for reviewing or otherwise interfering with other impeachment proceedings as "political questions", and I think it would be very precarious, even dangerous, grounds if it were to interfere with any presidential impeachment.

[Econoline]

"...high crimes and misdemeanors..."

Even if the word "crime" means exactly the same thing now (and even that's debatable), the word "high" sure doesn't!

[Bicycle Bill]

I meant the eighteenth century and you all knew it. But my error changes nothing. For the Constitution the relevant dates are 1787 , 1788 and 1789 and I shouldn’t have to tell you why they are relevant.

Wait a minute.  Aren't you the same guy who said, not all that long ago, that words mean whatever you say they mean?  This would tend to make one think that words evolve and can take on different meanings over time.  Now, however, you tell us that words today mean the same as they did three hundred years ago — no evolution, no change, no difference in meaning whatsoever.

C'mon, man, one or the other.  Make up your mind!

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

And let's not forget that Clinton's perjury occurred during a deposition in a civil case, something which did not occur in the 18th century; such depositions did not begin until well intol the 19th century. So in 1787-1789, Clinton's conduct would be neither a high crime nor a (high) misdemeanor, or any other sort of crime for that matter

[RayThom]

And let's not forget that Clinton's perjury occurred during a deposition in a civil case, something which did not occur in the 18th century; such depositions did not begin until well into the 19th century. So in 1787-1789, Clinton's conduct would be neither a high crime nor a (high) misdemeanor, or any other sort of crime for that matter.

Now you're thinking like a lawyer.

Case dismissed!

[rubato]

Rube - I recommend the Seamus Heaney translation.

I have it but I've never read any other so I can't comment on its relative virtue.


yrs,
rubato

[ex-khobar Andy]

I read two or three translations in my teens but they didn't hold my attention in the way that Heaney's did. Of course it may just be that I was thirty years older when that came out. But I can't really comment with any expertise because I have zero Old English. I have not seen Tolkien's translation which he did back in the 20s but which has only just now (2014) been published. I'll look for it in the library.

Edited to correct when JRRT translated Beowulf. In future I will rely less on memory and look shit up before I post.

[rubato]

" ...

Edited to correct when JRRT translated Beowulf. In future I will rely less on memory and look shit up before I post.

And you've been fooled, for the very last time, and now you're finally free!


yrs,
rubato