Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

Hi everyone,

This is only my second original thread (I have more in the pipeline), so please be gentle.

I'm creating this to discuss/prove my claim regarding what the U.S. Constitution requires when it comes to the Impeachment process. This subject has been debated in numerous threads I've participated in recently, but I thought it deserved its own thread, to see if anyone could actually successfully challenge my claim.

First I will state my claim, then I will outline 4 different statements as facts supporting my claim. Each statement relies on the one previous being correct for my Claim to be proven true.

If you disagree with my Claim, please pick the first of the 4 numbered statements below that you disagree with, and try to prove it wrong, but please use logic, reason, and other facts in your attempt. 'Liar liar pants on fire' is not a valid rebuttal.

My claim is simple:

The U.S. Constitution requires that any Impeachment Inquiry/Investigation undertaken by the House of Representatives (henceforth shortened to HoR) requires a vote of the full House.

Now to the proof...

First, it is a given that the U.S. Constitution, at Article I Section II clause V reads (in part):

"The HoR shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment."

This is straight from the Constitution. If you disagree with this, then please just go away.

I now submit the following 4 simple statements as proof of my claim. They must be read in order, as each one relies on the prior statement being true, and the first one follows from Article I Section II clause V of the Constitution itself.

1. The HoR, as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution at Article I Section II clause V, means the whole HoR; not the Speaker of the House, not some committee chair, not any other individual member or group of members - the whole HofR.

2. Initiation of an Impeachment Inquiry/Investigation falls within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment' as used in the Constitution, and for this reason, requires participation of the whole HofR.

3. The HofR - the whole HofR - makes its will officially known in one way and one way only: the act of voting on submitted Resolutions/Bills that are sent to the floor for a vote - again, by the whole HofR.

4. Assuming all of the above are true, then my claim stands as proven.

Again - if you disagree with my Claim, please pick the first of the 4 numbered statements below that you disagree with, and try to prove it wrong, but please use logic, reason, and other facts in your attempt. 'Liar liar pants on fire' is not a valid rebuttal.

Let the games begin!

a reply to: tanstaafl

It is a question of interpretation. Not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way the Trump cultists do:

"Beyond saying it should be based on “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution provides surprising little information governing how to impeach a sitting president.

Pelosi has announced that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) will lead an investigation into the whistleblower’s allegations, and along with five other committees, feed information about potential articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee, which will then decide whether to forward any to the House for a vote."

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Hi everyone,

This is only my second original thread (I have more in the pipeline), so please be gentle.

I'm creating this to discuss/prove my claim regarding what the U.S. Constitution requires when it comes to the Impeachment process. This subject has been debated in numerous threads I've participated in recently, but I thought it deserved its own thread, to see if anyone could actually successfully challenge my claim.

First I will state my claim, then I will outline 4 different statements as facts supporting my claim. Each statement relies on the one previous being correct for my Claim to be proven true.

If you disagree with my Claim, please pick the first of the 4 numbered statements below that you disagree with, and try to prove it wrong, but please use logic, reason, and other facts in your attempt. 'Liar liar pants on fire' is not a valid rebuttal.

My claim is simple:

The U.S. Constitution requires that any Impeachment Process undertaken by the House of Representatives (henceforth shortened to HoR) requires a vote of the full House.

Now to the proof...

First, it is a given that the U.S. Constitution, at Article I Section II clause V reads (in part):

"The HoR shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment."

This is straight from the Constitution. If you disagree with this, then please just go away.

I now submit the following 4 simple statements as proof of my claim. They must be read in order, as each one relies on the prior statement being true, and the first one follows from Article I Section II clause V of the Constitution itself.

1. The HoR, as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution at Article I Section II clause V, means the whole HoR; not the Speaker of the House, not some committee chair, not any other individual member or group of members - the whole HofR.

2. Initiation of an Impeachment Inquiry/Investigation falls within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment' as used in the Constitution, and for this reason, requires participation of the whole HofR.

3. The HofR - the whole HofR - makes its will officially known in one way and one way only: the act of voting on submitted Resolutions/Bills that are sent to the floor for a vote - again, by the whole HofR.

4. Assuming all of the above are true, then my claim stands as proven.

Again - if you disagree with my Claim, please pick the first of the 4 numbered statements below that you disagree with, and try to prove it wrong, but please use logic, reason, and other facts in your attempt. 'Liar liar pants on fire' is not a valid rebuttal.

Let the games begin!

I think you are 100% right, but you are missing the parts leading up to an impeachment vote by the House. They can't ask for a vote without any evidence. Evidence must be collected through an investigation and then released prior to a vote. You don't just show up to the House one day and take an impeachment vote.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: tanstaafl

It is a question of interpretation.

Fail.

Did you not read my OP?

Which of the 4 statements do you disagree with?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Pretty hard to impeach a president when nobody can prove a crime was committed.
Interpretation.....lol

I really hope they do impeach him, that way when it goes to the Senate we can drag out the skeletons from all the shady Democrat closets while they're under oath.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
I think you are 100% right, but you are missing the parts leading up to an impeachment vote by the House.

Fail.

Saying I am 100% right, then saying I'm wrong sounds a little like 'liar liar pants on fire'.

The constitution doesn't say anything about a vote.

Are you saying you disagree with statement 2?

The "Power of Impeachment" means that only the HoR can impeach, which itself means suggesting removing someone from office. It's not a finding of guilt. That says absolutely nothing about investigating the issues involved prior to the entire house getting involved through a formal vote. What you are suggesting is that it would take the entire House to authorize an investigation. I see nothing in the US Constitution that prevents the House from investigating anything at all, from UFOs to Commies in government, e.g. the McCarthy hearings.

"Investigating" by itself means the gathering of evidence. For example, a police detective can investigate an alleged crime, and that report is sent to a prosecutor who decides whether anyone will be charged and tried. The prosecutor can refuse to bring charges for any investigation. "Impeaching" someone is like a prosecutor filing charges. And even the HoR cannot impose guilt; only the Senate can. The Senate is the jury.

The HoR has not yet impeached anyone; they are only investigating the issues.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

Pretty hard to impeach a president when nobody can prove a crime was committed.
Interpretation.....lol

It's like, we're impeaching him, because.

Just because.

It's ridiculous. If the right had done this to Obama, it would've been the end of the world.

Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

a reply to: schuyler

I agree with that.

I wonder if the Republicans are so adamant on what the Democrats doing is so wrong, why haven't they started their own investigation into what they consider unethical? Maybe there is good reasoning for it, maybe they aren't allowed to start an investigation because they are the minority, or it's posturing. What's your take on that?

a reply to: tanstaafl

When I read the constitution it is my understanding that the impeachment INQUIRY can be done by these committees and that it's the VOTE on impeachment that will need the entire house.

And no one is saying that the entire house wont be voting on impeachment.
In fact no one is even saying that a vote will be had at all.

This legal inquiry might not yield enough evidence for the vote and thus impeachment will not happen at all.

The right seems to be very confused about inquiry vs vote.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way the Trump cultists do:

What , the correct way ?
And , who is "interpreting" ?

a reply to: Jefferton

If's and but's

a reply to: Middleoftheroad



But it appears like the repubs (at least the ones in congress) don't want that.

They keep trying to block the inquiry.
Are the repubs afraid of what might come out during a senate hearing?

If not why don't they just sit back and laugh while the dems destroy themselves?

I hope they're stupid enough to take it to open impeachment. The cross-examinations will bring the deep state house of cards down.

Let the games begin indeed.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Hi everyone,

This is only my second original thread (I have more in the pipeline), so please be gentle.

I'm creating this to discuss/prove my claim regarding what the U.S. Constitution requires when it comes to the Impeachment process. This subject has been debated in numerous threads I've participated in recently, but I thought it deserved its own thread, to see if anyone could actually successfully challenge my claim.

Correct.

However, an investigation (which is carried out by committee, not the full House) is different than an impeachment. We are currently in the investigation phase.

Here's the relevant pages on government investigations, with links to legal matter that confirm the House can form a committee to investigate someone or something: history.house.gov...

There's a list of "further reading" suggestions.

Like a few others here, I sat through the Nixon investigations (as well as many other investigations.) A lot of the shouting is due to the fact that Trump himself doesn't understand the difference between an investigation and an impeachment hearing. His lawyers should have explained this (if he'd listen.)

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



But it appears like the repubs (at least the ones in congress) don't want that.

They keep trying to block the inquiry.
Are the repubs afraid of what might come out during a senate hearing?

Don't know and I don't even support most of them, so if they have dirt to hide I hope it comes out too.

If not why don't they just sit back and laugh while the dems destroy themselves?

I have the same question and is why I asked Schuyler that question in my second post.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Please, seeing as how you brought it up

show "inquiry" for impeachment in the constitution


we all want this legal right??