There is no reason to point partisan fingers in this article and every reason to expand the list to 10 or more.
Let me help.
6. Using impeachment as a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Nancy's impeach without a crime hubris is a broadside against our 3 branch Constitutional order and profoundly anti-democratic. Gingrich's Jacksonian …
There is no reason to point partisan fingers in this article and every reason to expand the list to 10 or more.
Let me help.
6. Using impeachment as a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Nancy's impeach without a crime hubris is a broadside against our 3 branch Constitutional order and profoundly anti-democratic. Gingrich's Jacksonian fervor with Clinton began this noxious practice, but at least he had a crime (and DNA evidence), not just shoddy echo chamber news articles.
7. The rise of the Fourth (bureaucratic) and Fifth (single party media) estates. The Mandarins of the Potomac no longer even pretend to be responsive to democracy, are increasingly hyper-partisan, are immune to taxpayer concerns and happy to go full Weimar if the highest bidder comes their way. J. Edgar Mueller's Russia collusion juggernaut is but one minor example.
8. The No ID, no provisionals, no pre-registration, ballot harvesting, chain of custody free schemes in several states are not disingenuous voter access measures, they make fraud effectively unprosecutable. It is naive at best to believe these measures are designed to improve access to voting. Far more effective schemes, such as expanding in-person early voting stations, increase both access and security. States that have implemented Carter Baker 2004 measures are less vulnerable to fraud, but Democrats actively oppose Presidents Carter's measures. Ironically, these same Democrats often employ double and triple address and identity verification methods in their own caucuses, but have no problem with a free-for-all in general elections. Kind of telling.
9. Billions of dollars spent by oligarchs in transparently partisan efforts that are listed as "not for profits" and otherwise exempt from campaign limitations. Participatory democracy has become and afterthought as entities pour funds into lobbyists and promotional schemes that go directly counter to the interests and beliefs of their stakeholders.
10. The FEC is on the case of every individual who pushes the bounds of a few thousand dollar limit or violates complex campaign laws, but turns a blind eye to multi-billion corporations and institutions that engage in transparent partisan cheerleading and in kind contributions with billions.
"Crimes" are not required for impeachment. That's what courts are for. Any constitutional scholar will tell you this. In fact, the entire reason impeachment exists is to protect against abuse of power and violation of the public trust that may not technically be illegal because of the enourmous power granted to certain public officials. The idea that a crime is necessary was blatant propaganda put forth by people unqualified to speak on such matters, like Matthew Whitaker and Alan Dershowitz, and then propagated by Republican politicians and pundits.
And the Mueller commission was instituted by Trump's own Justice Department for entirely legitimate reasons. And they did their jobs honorably. Anyone who observed Trump's comically guilty behavior before and during the commission and concluded that this was somehow not in the public's interest has a very blinkered view of civic responsibility.
Article 4 of Section 2: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I was opposed to the Clinton impeachment for several reasons, most notably the availability of a remedy after the term and the fact lying in a court case is not functionally related to his duties. Some argued, perhaps rightly, that Clinton was a rapist but that was not where Paula Jones went in her case. The notion that "abuse of power" or "violation of the public trust" is grounds for impeachment is only pertinent when referring to bribery or treason, both crimes in their own right but also violations of fiduciary duty. No, sorry, Nancy's gambit was 100% political and the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence which is problematic in our system because we do not have a head of state that can dissolve a rogue parliament (a right the Queen of England held until only a few decades ago).
And there is nothing problematic about impeachment. A system without it would be one in which the executive had the power of a dictator. And Nancy Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump - she feared the same backlash that Republicans got over Clinton. She ultimately had to because Trump's abuses were so brazen.
As Constitutional scholars will tell you, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning at the time the constitution was written, and it does not refer to prosecutable crimes. It specifically refers to abuse of office by public officials.
"Constitutional scholars" don't agree on many of the details on how impeachment should go about. There has been debate about it since it was written into the constitution, including by the people who wrote it.
Regardless of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, Arena's point that the impeachment was used "as a parliamentary vote of no confidence", still holds. Regardless of whether crimes should be the standard of impeachment, impeachment should not be used as a means of asserting the arbitrary will of a faction and overturning an election. As Hamilton said in Federalist paper 65:
"The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Unfortunately, that danger presented itself in the impeachment of Trump.
There is no reason to point partisan fingers in this article and every reason to expand the list to 10 or more.
Let me help.
6. Using impeachment as a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Nancy's impeach without a crime hubris is a broadside against our 3 branch Constitutional order and profoundly anti-democratic. Gingrich's Jacksonian fervor with Clinton began this noxious practice, but at least he had a crime (and DNA evidence), not just shoddy echo chamber news articles.
7. The rise of the Fourth (bureaucratic) and Fifth (single party media) estates. The Mandarins of the Potomac no longer even pretend to be responsive to democracy, are increasingly hyper-partisan, are immune to taxpayer concerns and happy to go full Weimar if the highest bidder comes their way. J. Edgar Mueller's Russia collusion juggernaut is but one minor example.
8. The No ID, no provisionals, no pre-registration, ballot harvesting, chain of custody free schemes in several states are not disingenuous voter access measures, they make fraud effectively unprosecutable. It is naive at best to believe these measures are designed to improve access to voting. Far more effective schemes, such as expanding in-person early voting stations, increase both access and security. States that have implemented Carter Baker 2004 measures are less vulnerable to fraud, but Democrats actively oppose Presidents Carter's measures. Ironically, these same Democrats often employ double and triple address and identity verification methods in their own caucuses, but have no problem with a free-for-all in general elections. Kind of telling.
9. Billions of dollars spent by oligarchs in transparently partisan efforts that are listed as "not for profits" and otherwise exempt from campaign limitations. Participatory democracy has become and afterthought as entities pour funds into lobbyists and promotional schemes that go directly counter to the interests and beliefs of their stakeholders.
10. The FEC is on the case of every individual who pushes the bounds of a few thousand dollar limit or violates complex campaign laws, but turns a blind eye to multi-billion corporations and institutions that engage in transparent partisan cheerleading and in kind contributions with billions.
"Crimes" are not required for impeachment. That's what courts are for. Any constitutional scholar will tell you this. In fact, the entire reason impeachment exists is to protect against abuse of power and violation of the public trust that may not technically be illegal because of the enourmous power granted to certain public officials. The idea that a crime is necessary was blatant propaganda put forth by people unqualified to speak on such matters, like Matthew Whitaker and Alan Dershowitz, and then propagated by Republican politicians and pundits.
And the Mueller commission was instituted by Trump's own Justice Department for entirely legitimate reasons. And they did their jobs honorably. Anyone who observed Trump's comically guilty behavior before and during the commission and concluded that this was somehow not in the public's interest has a very blinkered view of civic responsibility.
Article 4 of Section 2: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I was opposed to the Clinton impeachment for several reasons, most notably the availability of a remedy after the term and the fact lying in a court case is not functionally related to his duties. Some argued, perhaps rightly, that Clinton was a rapist but that was not where Paula Jones went in her case. The notion that "abuse of power" or "violation of the public trust" is grounds for impeachment is only pertinent when referring to bribery or treason, both crimes in their own right but also violations of fiduciary duty. No, sorry, Nancy's gambit was 100% political and the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence which is problematic in our system because we do not have a head of state that can dissolve a rogue parliament (a right the Queen of England held until only a few decades ago).
And there is nothing problematic about impeachment. A system without it would be one in which the executive had the power of a dictator. And Nancy Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump - she feared the same backlash that Republicans got over Clinton. She ultimately had to because Trump's abuses were so brazen.
As Constitutional scholars will tell you, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning at the time the constitution was written, and it does not refer to prosecutable crimes. It specifically refers to abuse of office by public officials.
"Constitutional scholars" don't agree on many of the details on how impeachment should go about. There has been debate about it since it was written into the constitution, including by the people who wrote it.
Regardless of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, Arena's point that the impeachment was used "as a parliamentary vote of no confidence", still holds. Regardless of whether crimes should be the standard of impeachment, impeachment should not be used as a means of asserting the arbitrary will of a faction and overturning an election. As Hamilton said in Federalist paper 65:
"The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Unfortunately, that danger presented itself in the impeachment of Trump.