It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Impeachment Amendment, first enacted as a Federal Law

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 04:05 PM

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
The Constitution was framed to try and protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the US under law.

That is precisely what my proposed law/amendment is intended for. To protect us against sham garbage purely Partisan political impeachments.

It wasn't framed to protect the position of President.

Well, that is true, but The President is a Citizen, isn't he? With the same Rights and Privileges?

The President is immune from indictment in Federal and Civil courts and has the ability to pardon convicted criminals (at least up until the Prez is impeached). That is not the same rights and privileges as the average citizen.

Does his Executive Power, as delegated by the Constitution, not as deserving of protection from a partisan Congress, as the Powers of Congress are deserving for protection from a potentially partisan President?

The Presidency was created by act of Congress, to do so, Congress, at least at some stage, must have been superior in power to the POTUS.

Both houses consist of opposing groups called political parties (which hardly sound like a party i'd like to attend. I mean, look at them - no fun here, LOL). If you were to remove the parties and the partisanship, it just wouldn't be Congress, or the Senate, would it?

It would be a circle jerk of relatively powerless 'yes' men to adulate their ruler. That has been the problem of republics in the past. They all go off creating emperors and then having to stab them in the back to try and wrest back the reigns of power. Historically, the backstabbers failed and the tyranny usually asserts itself.

Everything in the US political system is designed to cycle out the people in power and replace them by new people in a continuous process.

Trump was always going to be a temporary President. They are all temporary.


What happened to Trump is supposed to happen.

Really, It didn't happen to Obama. Or Bush. or a lot of other Presidents. So, by all means, explain why what happened to Trump was supposed to happen.

They have all been cycled out. Every previous President. Only three Presidents have ever been impeached. Impeachment is one of the methods of cycling out Presidents and is fully Constitutional.

The Constitution validated a preexisting partisan party system. It works even in a partisan system to balance power and prevent tyranny (which in it's political sense means 'a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler').

Gosh, how clever were those guys in wigs and stockings who wrote the Constitution!

What you are trying to do sounds like establishing an emperor and it breaks the Constitution.

Geesh, really? How so? All it does is require true bi-partisan support for the Impeachment process.

Are you really opposed to that?

Damn right. Even if everyone in the government is in agreement and the government has absolute power under a single leader, it is still a tyranny.

Having a government "for the people and by the people" means lots of differences of opinion. Live with it.

edit on 19/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 04:10 PM

originally posted by: chr0naut
Damn right.

Ok... you freely, even proudly admit you are against the need for bi-partisan support for any impeachment.

That is all I need to know to know that I no longer need to bother reading your posts, it is a waste of my time.


posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 06:53 PM
Look at all of the fun we would be missing out on. NO, NO! I'm enjoying this too much.

posted on May, 25 2020 @ 12:47 PM

First, this should be enacted as a law - obviously after the Rs retake the House in 2020 - and then it should be proposed as a constitutional Amendment, to make it as permanent as possible.

You don’t enacted it as a law. You propose a amendment.

If you tried to start the amendment process that way. The Democrats would immediately challenge it in the supreme court would rule in her favor. Because they didn’t proceed as the V amendment described.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:

Again not enacted it would be proposed for ratification.

This law goes into effect immediately upon passage by both houses of Congress.

No it wouldn’t it requires three-quarters of state legislatures for ratification.

I’m reasonably sure you knew most of this. The only reason for this reply is to show you what a pain in the ass you’re being me following me around picking on every word. Lol
edit on 25-5-2020 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in