Impeachment hearings

[_MeDotOrg]

The ballot box should always win over a partisan vote in either the House or the Senate.

Given your definition, when it is acceptable to impeach a President?

[_honorentheos]

So are you saying that gross misconduct could be hid within the umbrella of privilege? And this could lead to authoritarian rule?

Was Bolton a tipping point that if he would not have revealed anything, even in the manner he did, we would then have staved off these fears of authoritarian rule? Don't these subjective ideas of exceptions to these rules of law, such as privilege as we are discussing, allow for more authoritarian leanings?

mikwut

Is reporting gross misconduct to another branch of government or the people from whom the authority to govern is derived an exception to the rule of law or a case of competing responsibilities? Rights overlap as you know, and much of constitutional law is tied up in dealing with these overlaps. I think this question is more like that. The greater need is to protect the form of democratic government for the notion of executive privilege to have meaning, making it subordinate in line of concern.

[_EAllusion]

Was Bolton a tipping point that if he would not have revealed anything, even in the manner he did, we would then have staved off these fears of authoritarian rule? Don't these subjective ideas of exceptions to these rules of law, such as privilege as we are discussing, allow for more authoritarian leanings?

mikwut

What privilege are you referring to that exists within the "rule of law" that Bolton's reports exist as an exception to? It's not executive privilege as currently understood and "presidential privilege" is not a legal concept so much as a vague idea you are waving your hand with. There are subtypes of privilege that do refer to legal doctrines, but you don't be appear to referring to any of them.

The Whitehouse is owned by and works for the public. The default is not that all conversations contained within are to be shielded on executive say-so. The default is the public is entitled to know what goes on in its government when there is a public interest in doing so. There specific exceptions carved out in law, some more justifiable than others, and you aren't explaining why any of those exceptions are relevant here. Bolton's allegations are legal and that is the way it ought to be. Implying that there is some burden to explain how such a scandalous thing can be allowed is a neat trick.

[_EAllusion]

The ballot box should always win over a partisan vote in either the House or the Senate.

Given your definition, when it is acceptable to impeach a President?

When an impeachment is sufficiently bipartisan. So if you are a political party interested in nullifying the impeachment power and placing the President and defacto head of your party above the reach of the law, all you have to do is stick together and you've done it. If anyone breaks with your party, say a Justin Amash, just push them out of the caucus. That's Mikwut's view.

Mikwut's implied view, unfortunately, is that the Constitution set up a garbage governmental framework that needs to be torn down as quickly as possible, only he isn't saying that either. He seems to think that a President being above the law if the President can maintain parliamentary support of his or her party is a good thing. That can be resolved at the ballot box. And if the President stuffs the ballot box, *crickets*.

[_EAllusion]

It turns out Cuba has been a thriving democracy for decades because the people could always just vote the Castros out. It's just that the people vote for rule by Castro by massive margins for some reason.

[_Gunnar]

Yes, and North Korea has a thriving democracy too, since nearly 100% of the voters vote for Kim Jong Un every election. Never mind the fact that those few who don't are imprisoned or executed.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, and North Korea has a thriving democracy too, since nearly 100% of the voters vote for Kim Jong Un every election. Never mind the fact that those few who don't are imprisoned or executed.

If citizens didn't like being imprisoned or executed for politically opposing North Korean leadership, they could always vote them out of office. Let the people decide if they dislike that. Duh.

[_Icarus]

Mikwut, could you please point out where the Constitution says impeachment must rely on bipartisan votes only?

And Justin Amash was a Republican but left the party over Trump, and in the Senate two Republicans voted to let John Bolton testify. It seems like every day there is another former GOP lawmaker coming out expressing how he detests what's happening in terms of Trump getting a free pass in light of his corruption.

Meanwhile a slight majority of all US voters want Trump removed from office while a strong majority want the Senate to allow witnesses.

[Guest]

Hi Icarus,

Mikwut, could you please point out where the Constitution says impeachment must rely on bipartisan votes only?

Your phrase is loaded. The constitution doesn't say, "impeachment must rely on bipartisan votes only". You know that. The constitution speaks and the framers spoke about partisanship. Legal scholars have identified six constitutional arguments "construction", that our courts use to decide constitutional issues. (1) is historical, (2) is textual, (3) is structural, (4) is doctrinal, (5) is ethical, and (6) is prudential. There are strong arguments for each of the listed constructions that together make a strong case that the constitution favors bipartisanship in impeachment and the framers feared partisanship.

Historically, we usually argue original intent of the framers of the constitution. Hamilton, as has been often quoted obviously feared partisanship. And many framers arguments can be made express and implied. Hamilton speaks of partisan passions in his discussion of impeachment. Although political parties as we know of today did not exist then allegiance, ties and divides on issues clearly did and the fear of these divisive allegiances motivated the contructing of the constitution.

Textually, again usually refers to the framers original intent. We know the framers moved the idea of impeachment away from Britains. And in every way the movement was for a more strict rule of impeachment and a higher standard. This can seen as supportive of bipartisanship.

Structurally, the constitution created a 2/3 majority in the Senate. This express rule infers that bipartisanship is what is being avoided. By adopting this requirement they shielded the process from naked partisanship. This too differed from the English practice, which allowed conviction on a majority vote. A supermajority would demonstrate partisan passions would be broke by rational power.

Doctrinal arguments are usually referring to precedent. Just as Nancy Pelosi said partisan impeachments are bad for the country and we should try to avoid them.

Prudential arguments are cost benefit balancing. it is common sense such a divided split on removing an elected president results in even more division and flames the fires of partisanship.

Ethical arguments are still constitutional arguments. They aren't about the particular impeachment itself. They center around the ethical ethos of the constitution. We know that construction leaned toward the power of the people electing its president so ethically partisanship is obvious that it should be avoided.

And Justin Amash was a Republican but left the party over Trump

I am not sure a former member of the GOP who became an independent in July counts for the current proceeding to be labeled bipartisan. If that is what you meant by bipartisan, OK. I don't consider the House bipartisan because one democrat left and went to the Republican party and one didn't cast one way or the other but just present.

in the Senate two Republicans voted to let John Bolton testify

Let's see if they vote to impeach, I don't think I hear those rumblings. There could be other motives for voting for witnesses and that is different than the constitutional arguments for bipartisanship.

It seems like every day there is another former GOP lawmaker coming out expressing how he detests what's happening in terms of Trump getting a free pass in light of his corruption.

Maybe a censure would be in good order. This isn't really relevant for the constitutional argument you brought to me. We have known for some time, months, how partisan this impeachment is and would be. It has always been near certain democrats would not get the votes in the Senate.

Meanwhile a slight majority of all US voters want Trump removed from office while a strong majority want the Senate to allow witnesses.

The witnesses aren't really relevant for the bipartisanship impeachment issue. A lot of that could be Republicans that want Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify.

Within the margin of err a nearly split public goes to the prudential nature of not impeaching, it is a drastic measure and would lead to more division.

mikwut

[_mikwut]

When an impeachment is sufficiently bipartisan.

Yes that is a very important factor I have maintained. Given our cognitive blinders partisanship is divisive to the country and creates dangers for the country (like politically weaponizing impeachment) that outweigh a a strictly partisan impeachment. Objective parties to a partisan impeachment can see that a near complete partisan impeachment occurs because one side can maintain a rational basis for their position. No matter how stubborn the other side believes otherwise. It doesn't matter how much you call it dishonest or irrational to believe that thinking about withholding aid until investigations into a political rival, that you believe the President had a rational belief was involved in corrupt practices, but then lifted the hold and their was no real harm does not rise to level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

In my view, (although the hypothetical isn't perfect) I honestly believe, that if Hunter Biden did not exist in the Ukraine scenario to give any mixed motive to the President. And, the facts are otherwise the same, Trump still wanted Joe Biden investigated I don't know a rational basis to conclude anything other than Trump was solely and completely attacking his political rival for solely and completely personal gain. I believe that would receive bipartisan support.

So if you are a political party interested in nullifying the impeachment power and placing the President and defacto head of your party above the reach of the law, all you have to do is stick together and you've done it.

You first have to prove a violation of the law for that to happen. And if you proceed from articles that don't even assert a violation of a statute you leave that interpretation up to partisanship.

If anyone breaks with your party, say a Justin Amash, just push them out of the caucus. That's Mikwut's view.

I really don't consider Jeff Van Drew or Justin Amash as serious contenders to label the current impeachment as bipartisan and I didn't say what you said I said.

Mikwut's implied view, unfortunately, is that the Constitution set up a garbage governmental framework that needs to be torn down as quickly as possible, only he isn't saying that either. He seems to think that a President being above the law if the President can maintain parliamentary support of his or her party is a good thing. That can be resolved at the ballot box. And if the President stuffs the ballot box, *crickets*.

Why do you keep saying above the law when no law has been proven to be broken? Your view is you are the law and get to opine in manner colored with something of a higher imprimatur than E's opining.

Stuffed ballot boxes shouldn't be stated in advance they should handled with evidence of their occurrence.

mikwut