Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Not really. The Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules. There could be a public agreement, and the Senate could vote those into its rules, but it can't be a law.
Click to expand...

They won't do that anyway. It requires House approval and POTUS signature or a veto override.
 
theprestige said:
I thought you said all that was needed was Trump, McConnell and Pelosi having an agreement.

If 51 Senators have a different opinion on what should be done, why would they vote for rules they don't like in the first place? Why would they then vote for a law they don't want, that prevents them from changing the rules they don't want?

Conversely, I thought McConnell was supposed to be the boss of the Senate. Why can't he just reach an agreement, force a vote on new rules, and then block any more votes?

Etc.
Click to expand...

This is all hypothetical. Did you miss that?

And the answer to your final question is "no". McConnell cannot block any votes on the floor. All that needs to happen is for whoever is presiding to recognize a Senator. He makes a motion that is seconded. A vote would happen then.

The majority leader's power is that he manages the process up to that point. He sets the agenda.
 
Belz... said:
Another platitude.

Of course it doesn't mean that. But I'm asking you specifically why you think things will change if they haven't already? If there is no evidence that it will change, where do you get this idea? Hope?
Click to expand...
Cost/benefit ratio. If the cost is small enough, even an unlikely benefit is worth pursuing. Also, rather than thinking in terms of whether it will change or not, we should consider whether it might change a little, a lot, or somewhere in-between. A small change, even an unlikely small change, can still be worth playing the cards you have.


By the way, labeling my point a "platitude" doesn't argue against it. If it's true, or applicable, it is true or applicable whether it is a platitude or not.
 
acbytesla said:
You're mistaken. The Constitution says the trial takes place in the Senate. It says nothing about the rules. Those rules could be written into law permanently or say for POTUS in 2020.
Click to expand...
The Constitution says that Senate has the sole power to hold an impeachment trial. That means that House approval or Presidential approval are not needed, and the Senate makes its own rules for the trial.
 
Paul2 said:
The Constitution says that Senate has the sole power to hold an impeachment trial. That means that House approval or Presidential approval are not needed, and the Senate makes its own rules for the trial.
Click to expand...

I know that is what it says. That doesn't mean that a law couldn't be written that would set certain rules in stone that the Senate would have to adhere. The Senate would still maintain sole power to hold an impeachment trial. Now wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I know that is what it says. That doesn't mean that a law couldn't be written that would set certain rules in stone that the Senate would have to adhere. The Senate would still maintain sole power to hold an impeachment trial. Now wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
The Senate solely decides how to conduct an impeachment trial, and under what rules. So if a law was passed about how to hold the trial, the Senate could always, at any time, remove that rule or change it or whatever.


ETA: The word "sole" in the Constitution means that no one else gets to tell the Senate how to do the trial, so that means the Senate can revoke or change any rule or law otherwise instituted.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
The Senate solely decides how to conduct an impeachment trial, and under what rules. So if a law was passed about how to hold the trial, the Senate could always, at any time, remove that rule or change it or whatever.


ETA: The word "sole" in the Constitution means that no one else gets to tell the Senate how to do the trial, so that means the Senate can revoke or change any rule or law otherwise instituted.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your analysis. The Senate agreed to the terms in the law creating the rules that it would abide to. Legally, we're in uncharted territory though.
 
Paul2 said:
The Senate solely decides how to conduct an impeachment trial, and under what rules. So if a law was passed about how to hold the trial, the Senate could always, at any time, remove that rule or change it or whatever.


ETA: The word "sole" in the Constitution means that no one else gets to tell the Senate how to do the trial, so that means the Senate can revoke or change any rule or law otherwise instituted.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that would hold, if the Senate rules were passed into law.

I'm pretty sure the Senate would never stoop to asking the House and the President to sign off on Senate rules, by passing them into law.

And I'm extremely confident that the Senate would never put themselves in a position where there was any risk needing House and president approval to change Senate rules.

I was okay with acbytesla's hypothetical, right up until he started talking about passing a law. Then it was, "this must be what having a stroke feels like."
 
theprestige said:
I was okay with acbytesla's hypothetical, right up until he started talking about passing a law. Then it was, "this must be what having a stroke feels like."
Click to expand...

It is still a hypothetical. As I said before. I seriously doubt they will agree to terms let alone agree to write a law. I'm just saying they could (hypothetically) codify their agreement. It wouldn't have to be a permanent law. It doesn't necessarily mean that the law would stand up to a legal challenge.
 
acbytesla said:
You're mistaken. The Constitution says the trial takes place in the Senate. It says nothing about the rules. Those rules could be written into law permanently or say for POTUS in 2020.
Click to expand...

Also they can (and will) be permanently written into law... and still ignored whenever convenient.

We don't currently have an enforced "No breaking the rules" rule in placed, so for the billionth time "BUT THE RULES SAY THIS!" means as close to nothing without actually being totally meaningless as possible.

So not only can the Senate do whatever they want as long as it technically can be called a trial, they can do whatever they want even if it goes against the rules either they or anyone else put into place.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Also they can (and will) be permanently written into lawand still ignored whenever convenient.

We don't currently have an enforced "No breaking the rules" rule in placed, so for the billionth time "BUT THE RULES SAY THIS!" means as close to nothing without actually being totally meaningless as possible.

So not only the Senate do whatever they want as long as it technically can be called a trial, they can do whatever they want even if it goes against the rules either they or anyone else put into place.
Click to expand...

They have to rewrite the rules which require a simple majority. Now whether they can write laws which they must obey may be questionable. Although it seems reasonable. But I admit I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Also they can (and will) be permanently written into law... and still ignored whenever convenient.

We don't currently have an enforced "No breaking the rules" rule in placed, so for the billionth time "BUT THE RULES SAY THIS!" means as close to nothing without actually being totally meaningless as possible.

So not only the Senate do whatever they want as long as it technically can be called a trial, they can do whatever they want even if it goes against the rules either they or anyone else put into place.
Click to expand...


^This

As long as you have politicians who blatantly ignore the laws and the rules (and no-one can truthfully argue that this lot have done exactly that) then, no amount of laws or rules will make them do what they don't want to do.

The fact that history WILL judge them poorly for how they have behaved will change nothing. How many members of this Senate and Administration have already crapped all over their own legacies. Mitch McConnell? Lindsay Graham? William Barr? They might have done great things in the past, but they will only now be remembered for their perfidy in THIS matter.

They also may be held accountable at a later time, but that won't change what they want in the here and now. They think that if they play their cards right, they will never be held accountable!
 
Last edited:
Joe and Smartcookie are making the most important point. Laws are meaningless if they are not abided to and enforced. We can go back through history and see how some laws are enforced and how some laws have been ignored and really are meaningless today.

Sodomy for example is against the law in half the States. You might say that the Supreme Court struck down those laws and you would be right. But where in the Constitution does it say the Court has the right to do this? The answer is absolutely nowhere. It was established through precedence and precedence alone.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional and so did Jefferson and John Adams yet Jefferson did it anyway. Does that mean they didn't respect the law?

My point is that laws are only real if we respect them.
 
acbytesla said:
You're mistaken. The Constitution says the trial takes place in the Senate. It says nothing about the rules. Those rules could be written into law permanently or say for POTUS in 2020.
Click to expand...

Article I, section V. You're wrong.
 
Meadmaker said:
Article I, section V. You're wrong.
Click to expand...

That literally says nothing beyond the (rather self evident) fact that the two houses of Congress have the right to set procedural rules on themselves.

- The Senate tries the actual impeachment after the House makes the decision to impeach

- The Senate requires a 2/3rd majority to convict and the House a simple majority to decide to impeach.

Those are literally the only rules in the Constitution about Presidential Impeachment. Literally everything else, at best, is up for debate. Period.

If the Senate's trial consist of reading a goat's entrails, playing Bingo for half an afternoon, debating Ginger Vs Mary Anne for a few hours, and then voting it's a perfectly Constitutional trial with legally binding results and literally nothing the Democrats scream and whine and yell and bluster about will change that.

I seriously don't get where people are pulling all this "Well the rules say it has to go like this..." stuff from. Literally no rule says an impeachment has to go like anything beyond what the House and Senate say the parts they are responsible for have to go.

1. The Republican majority in the Senate can rewrite the rules as they sit with nearly limitless leeway within the actual codified rules. As long as it ends in a Senate vote with or without a 2/3rd vote what they have done is legal.

2. The Republicans can also just straight up not follow the rules because nobody can or will stop them.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Article I, section V. You're wrong.
Click to expand...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
US Constitution Article I, section V.
Click to expand...

Where does it say a word about Impeachment rules?
 
Meadmaker said:
An impeachment trial is among the proceedings of the Senate.
Click to expand...

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

Do you understand the difference between "may" and "shall" in a legal document? There is nothing here that is written in stone. "may" also means "may not". They have a choice. "Shall" OTOH means compelled.
 
Meadmaker said:
An impeachment trial is among the proceedings of the Senate.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly lost here. That the Senate is who gets to hold the actual impeachment trial is not something anyone is arguing.

Outside of the 2/3rds majority needed to convict there is no rule in place as to how the Senate on a functional level is required to hold the trial on a nuts and bolts level. Arguing procedural requirements to people who don't listen is enough of a waste of time as it is, it crosses the border into almost suspiciously pointless when there is no actual procedure to hold them to.

They say no witness, no witness. They say no testimony, no testimony. They say televised, televised. They say secret, secret. They say everyone in the chambers has to wear a fez and a white carnation, so be it.

They can hold a trial in any way they see fit. They can sit on it forever and do nothing and 100 years from now "Donald Trump is still being technically impeached" becomes one of those little pieces of trivia you come across.

And all of that is without invoking the "We're gonna do anything we want because nobody is going to stop us clause" that has worked for them perfectly well so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom