It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Make Things Clear

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
IMO the speaker has instituted a perpetual impeachment investigation with no scope.

Please stop spreading falsehoods.

Without a vote of the whole House, there simply is no Impeachment Inquiry/investigation. Period.

They can investigate all they want, but they have no legal authority to compel anything unless it is within their Constitutionally delegated Power of legislative oversight.




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
it is not the constituion
it is the rules of the house
otherwise the speaker of the house solely wields impeachment power and not congress or the house for that matter

That is pure and utter nonsense.

Straight from The Constitution (the sole authority on the subject):

"The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole power of impeachment."

How on earth did you get 'the speaker of the house' out of that?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Surely you realize that the impeachment investigation is not the vote on the Articles of Impeachment (the actual "event" of Impeachment)?

I don't remember if we've interacted before, but I typically ignore ludicrous strawman arguments as couched in your opening question. I've never claimed anything similar to any individual having "the power of impeachment."

I have said clearly that a) the Constitution gives the House the power of Impeachment and b) there is no legal or parliamentary requirement for a vote before investigation.

If you have some other factual information ... I'll be glad to hear it.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

You may have misunderstood shooterbrody's argument.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: shooterbrody
IMO the speaker has instituted a perpetual impeachment investigation with no scope.


Without a vote of the whole House, there simply is no Impeachment Inquiry/investigation. Period.



Care to prove it?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Prove your claim that some sort of vote is needed to make House subpoenas valid. You didn't prove any of your other claims so I have my doubts.

I am not in favor of sham investigations.

My posts have been links to primary sources (Constitution, Rules of the House, even the Jeffeeson Manual) and requests for you and others to prove your claims which you haven't done.

Now you're just parroting my arguments which usually bores me into stopping my responses to you.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl



Please stop spreading falsehoods.

sadly I have not
there is no requirement for a vote to begin
and as far as I can tell it can go on as long as pelosi wants it too in its current form as there is not defined scope


They can investigate all they want, but they have no legal authority to compel anything unless it is within their Constitutionally delegated Power of legislative oversight.

I agree
as do the courts
to have enforcement power they DO have to have a full house vote



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Prove that any court in this country has found that a full House vote is required for subpoenas to be enforceable.

Because the Supreme Court disagrees ... Kilbourne V Thompson (1880).
edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
reed v county commissioners
I have already linked such here
the house has 3 options to enforce subpoenas
1) Order the Sergeant at arms to arrest and detain those in contempt, yeah that option is going to happen last used in 1934
2) Ask the AG to impanel a grand jury, yeah sure Barr is going to do that for the house
3) Go to court to have it enforced, this option is the one which reed v county commissioners is relevant and it requires a floor vote to empower the subponea

without being able to enforce the subpoenas they send out their investigation is folly

this is a pdf link
www.theusconstitution.org...



One important caveat regarding the House’s power to enforce subpoenas through civil suit is that under existing precedent, authorizations for such suits may not be initiated solely by individual legislators or legislative committees. In a 2006 case, minority members of the House Government Reform Committee sought a court order granting them access to certain records at the Department of Health and Human Services.117 The court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. County Commissioners—which held that Senators could not bring suit to enforce a subpoena unless the full Senate specifically authorized them to sue118—“put Congress on notice that it was necessary to make authorization to sue to enforce investigatory demands explicit if it wished to ensure that such power existed.” 119 In short, following the district court decisions described above, “it appears that all that is legally required for House committees, the House general counsel, or a House-retained private counsel to seek civil enforcement of subpoenas or other orders is that authorization be granted by resolution of the full House.”120 This power is sure to be a critical aspect of the House’s ability to enforce subpoenas and, more broadly, its ability to fulfill its right to effectively investigate.


edit on 10/10/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Prove that any court in this country has found that a full House vote is required for subpoenas to be enforceable.

Because the Supreme Court disagrees ... Kilbourne V Thompson (1880).


really?



The Supreme Court first addressed the scope of Congress’ power to investigate in 1880, in a case called Kilbourn v. Thompson. The case arose after a special committee was created to investigate the bankruptcy of an investment firm that held U.S. government funds. Hallett Kilbourn was ordered to appear before the committee to testify and to bring records with him, but Kilbourn was held in contempt after he refused both to answer questions about the people involved and to bring records. The Supreme Court threw out the contempt order, holding that the House of Representatives did not have the power to authorize the investigation and, therefore, to force Kilbourn to testify. The court explained that no one can be punished for contempt “as a witness before either house unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that house has jurisdiction to inquire, and we feel equally sure that neither of these bodies possesses the general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen.”

lol
if you say so bub



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oraculi

time.com...


Justice Department Says Trump's Ukraine Call Doesn't Constitute Campaign Finance Violation

nope
not a violation



Prosecutors from the Justice Department reviewed a rough transcript of the call and determined the president did not violate campaign finance law.

I hope this clears things up.






Ahhh another misunderstanding of the law. Let me clear it up.

The Justice Department does not prosecute the president, in fact no law enforcement organization can prosecute the president. The US Constitution makes it clear that ONLY the Congress has the power to investigate AND to prosecute the president of the United States.

It makes no difference what the Justice Department says whether it's a crime or not, they are outside of their element and their jurisdiction.


Then vote on it or STFU already.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

My God.

Please reread this portion of your lengthy quote:

".. unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that house has jurisdiction to inquire."

Did you notice above that the House has the Constitutional power of Impeachment ... Betcha did.

Bub.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

yep
the scotus threw it out
the fellow was a private citizen

nothing to do with this event

the info I linked show the actual standing precedent



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lol ... Read the Wiki article again. Notice the section called the Kilbourn Test.

I don't have time to explain it to you at the moment, but I will later if you can't see your rather glaring misunderstanding.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
Surely you realize that the impeachment investigation is not the vote on the Articles of Impeachment (the actual "event" of Impeachment)?

I do, and don't call me Surely.


I've never claimed anything similar to any individual having "the power of impeachment."

I have said clearly that a) the Constitution gives the House the power of Impeachment and b) there is no legal or parliamentary requirement for a vote before investigation.

If you have some other factual information ... I'll be glad to hear it.

You are correct that there is no legal or parliamentary requirement for a vote of the whole House before a formal Impeachment Inquiry is initiated.

There is, however, a Constitutional requirement. It is plain as day, for anyone who knows how to read with comprehension.

"The House of Representatives ... has the sole Power of Impeachment."

There can be no 'Impeachment Inquiry', or investigation or whatever you want to call it, without a formal vote of the whole House.

Nancy can't simply declare it by herself, and no Committee that didn't even exist when the Constitution was written can declare it.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Without a vote of the whole House, there simply is no Impeachment Inquiry/investigation. Period."

Care to prove it?

Objection: asked and answered.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
there is no requirement for a vote to begin

There must be a vote for there to be a formal Impeachment Inquiry/investigation.


to have enforcement power they DO have to have a full house vote

So you agree, until they do, it isn't an Impeachment Inquiry/investigating, it is a lot of yammering/blathering from a few blowhards with no power to compel anyone to do anything - a show.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Perhaps you shouldn't shop at wikipedia?
You do understand anyone can edit that information?

It is interesting the house has yet to rouse the sergeant at arms into action, or ask the doj to help, gee that only leaves the courts and they haven't filed suit......
wonder why.....



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl



There must be a vote for there to be a formal Impeachment Inquiry/investigation.

sorry I disagree
imo pelosi has stretched the power to its limit, similarly to what harry reid did with the nuclear option in the senate
she can have her "inquiry"
there is just no enforcement behind it
there will be no evidence or witnesses
current legal precedent requires a full house vote for legal enforcement

so yes it is as you posted a lot of yammering/blathering but it is what the 116th house is calling an impeachment inquiry

oh how the other side will wail when it is turned on them as the nuclear option was



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Claiming that anyone who reads the Constitution with comprehension must agree with your interpretation is fallacious.

If the Framers had meant to say "there must be a formal action of the House to investigate prior to impeachment" they would have said it. They didn't. I linked information on the actual debates regarding the impeachment power earlier.

There is no requirement Constitutionally, within the House Rules or in any other place that stipulates an official action to open inquiry. In point of fact, there have been multiple Impeachments without such actions. (And before anyone jumps, remember that Impeachment is not just for Presidents.)

There is also no "legal precedent" as some keep prattling on about. Legal precedent is a matter from the Common Law and regards JUDICIAL matters, not legislative.




edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join