Topic: REEE: [US Only] Impeachment Vote (Read 1419 times)

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title from any "King, Prince, or foreign State," without congressional consent. This clause is meant to prevent external influence and corruption of American officers by foreign States. A similar provision was included in the Articles of Confederation, applicable to both federal and state officers. The language of the modern clause, however, suggests that only federal government officials are prohibited from accepting any emoluments.

That the phrase "Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States" applies to all appointed officials is undisputed, however there is much debate as to whether it extends to elected officials.

History does not provide a clear answer: When he served as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton produced a list of persons holding such offices at the request of the Senate; the list did not include any elected positions. Further, during their presidencies, while George Washington did not seek or obtain congressional consent for foreign gifts, Andrew Jackson did.

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, on the other hand, enumerates several elected positions in its definition of "employees" who may not accept any gift of more than minimal value without congressional approval. Such "employees" include the President and the Vice President, a Member of Congress, and the spouses and dependents of the same.

...

Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

They look at you a bit funny when you started talking like that?

The Supreme Court has already ruled in the past on this and executive privilege, what they can withhold, is narrowly limited to certain things in the case of impeachment (at least I think's that what it is. could be for oversight in general). Their main reasoning for withholding things seemed to do a side step around that and instead said the entire inquiry etc was invalid and talked about due process. And again. They turned over documents to citizens but not the same sort of stuff to congress.

If you're referring to the case about the Mueler report, that's different. That's about whether private Grand Jury testimony can be made available for impeachment. There's also previous case law for that and it was in favor of congress getting it for impeachment. The impeachment trial is considered a judiciary proceeding. Since the investigation and articles of impeachment are required for the trial, all of what the congress does also falls into that. Some Rule 6e about grand jury testimony has an exception for judicial proceedings. So that case will only fail if the dems screw up in some way, or the appeals court etc somehow decides to completely overturn previous case law. If they don't, I doubt the supreme court will hear the case. If they do, then the supreme court probably would.

Yep.     

You ever been in a court?

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

I was reviewing yesterday the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Communists took over in 1917 Russia. What started as enthusiasm and idealism, and the freshness of a new political system in just a few years devolved into statis and totalitarianism.

It seems the American left, once a party of serious principles, has gone a similar route.

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

And that's "good." Interesting point of view.

I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.

Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?

Oh is it clear? Because to me it is clear they are pushing removal and resistance first then manufacturing evidence to support these actions later. This is all about butthurt over losing in 2016. The left are tyrants that cant tolerate a peaceful handover of power. They must be in charge at all times, and if they can't be they will stomp their feet, scream, and burn it all down. Why would anyone cooperate with this? Obstruction of what cupcake? You mean like obstruction of the Russia investigation that also never happened?

It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election.  Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached?

They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony.  

Usually /= always.

usually