• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Impeachment Amendment

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Bodhicitta, Jan 21, 2020.

  1. Bodhicitta

    Bodhicitta Member Supporter

    106
    +47
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    Only amending our Constitution will have a lasting effect. Whether thru the convention of States method or the regular difficult process, these words should be added after the line about the House having 'sole power' to impeach:

    And no Person shall be impeached without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Save one word, this is borrowed from the Senate section regarding their 'sole power' to try an impeachment case.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. A_Thinker

    A_Thinker Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,222
    Christian
    Married
    What's your rationale ???
     
  3. Kentonio

    Kentonio Well-Known Member

    +5,387
    France
    Atheist
    Single
    It’s already so difficult to impeach a president that it’s only happened on 3 occasions. No president has ever been convicted despite all their crimes and abuses. And now you want to make it MORE difficult? Didn’t you guys want to get rid of a king, not create one?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  4. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +11,901
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Well, the real point is that the Anointed Donald couldn't possibly have done anything wrong--as everyone knows, even the Democrats, which is why they had to fabricate the impeachment charges. I guess the OP wants to be sure that if these atheists ever again try to thwart God's will they will have to have a 2/3 majority of the House to do it.
     
  5. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,473
    Christian
    Single
    I think the idea would be to get rid of impeachment for reason of satisfying vindictive people. If this turns out the way I expect, we just don't want this happening willy nilly for no other reason than winning a grudge match...a grudge held, in this case, because he was elected.

    Seriously, this is ridiculous, and should be something we learn from, and do whatever possible, if there is anything, to avoid it in the future.
     
  6. Kenny'sID

    Kenny'sID Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,473
    Christian
    Single
    And here I was thinking he couldn't possibly do anything right. ;)
     
  7. jayem

    jayem Naturalist

    +4,203
    Atheist
    Married
    I might be OK with requiring articles of impeachment to pass both the Senate and House with 2/3 majorities. But instead of a Senate trial, removal of the President should be decided by the voters. Kind of like No-Confidence votes in the PM that are held in Parliamentary governments. If Articles of Impeachment are passed, then within 30 days, they're put to a nationwide vote. The only item on the ballot is "Should President X be removed from office." The only choices are Yes or No. A simple majority prevails. I know there will be enormous logistical and cost issues. Maybe in time, on-line voting will be secure enough to allow for something like this. But requiring super-majorities to indict the President, and then requiring the electorate to decide his/her fate, I think will somewhat mitigate the influence of political parties. And after all, the voters hired the President. If he turns out to be a criminal or scoundrel before his term is up, then why shouldn't the voters have the power to fire him?
     
  8. Bodhicitta

    Bodhicitta Member Supporter

    106
    +47
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    1) The growing partisan climate - 2) Trump's impeachment, for the only time, was purely partisan, just Democrats voted for it. 3) The ⅔ rule in House will reduce the chances of future impeachments by a simple House majority vote.
     
  9. Kentonio

    Kentonio Well-Known Member

    +5,387
    France
    Atheist
    Single
    Votes of No Confidence in the UK are held in parliament, the voters don’t get a say in it.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. mala

    mala fluffy lion

    +1,708
    Muslim
    Single
    How would that work at all? There are already a significant amount of disenfranchised voters. Would that 30 allotment also allow for absentee ballots, early voting, etc...?
    At least with regular elections the working class can reasonably take time off from work to vote (at least you can if your boss isn't an evil pos, if they are then your obvious choice is to eat them) but with a snap 30 day election good luck with that.
    You have not at all thought this through.
     
  11. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +7,480
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Non-partisans from the NSC, State Department and OMB all provided evidential testimony supporting the alleged actions of this President. This is not a purely partisan impeachment.
     
  12. jayem

    jayem Naturalist

    +4,203
    Atheist
    Married
    Yeah, I said it was kind of like a parliamentary no confidence vote, but maybe I didn't make it clear that the analogy wasn't meant to be exact. In my proposal, it would be a no confidence vote by the electorate.
     
  13. jayem

    jayem Naturalist

    +4,203
    Atheist
    Married
    When I said it would pose enormous logistical problems, I was referring to the present. But I'm thinking of the future. It may take 10, 15, 20 years or more, but on-line voting is inevitable. No one should deny that. It will obviate all those concerns about early voting, absentee ballots, taking time off work, and other such issues. I'm an optimist. None of us can imagine all that will be feasible in the years to come. :oldthumbsup:
     
  14. A_Thinker

    A_Thinker Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,222
    Christian
    Married
    One could only assume that the founders had good reasons for setting the bar for impeachment at majority, rather than 2/3's of the House.

    And addressing the partisan issue, a party united in corruption is something to be shielded against, as well ...
     
  15. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +3,367
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    Has anybody informed Justin Amash he's a Democrat now apparently?
     
  16. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,718
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    He's an Independent.
     
  17. Bobber

    Bobber Well-Known Member

    +1,004
    Non-Denom
    Any you know when it's put this way you know the response of some who read it. No! That'd make it almost impossible to impeach a President. It'd have to be something so treasonous that they sold out the nation to wilfully hurt the country OR THEY accepted bribes to Sell OUT the nation for personal gain. Exactly.

    And that's pretty much the way the Founding Fathers wanted THE PEOPLE to think about it. Not even removing a President for what could be considered rather insignificant things. Things that could even be argued to be wrong but not absolutely earth shattering. Elections were made to take care of that if the PEOPLE would so feel whatever injustice was on the level of not wanting him or her to lead they could vote them out of office.
     
  18. Kentonio

    Kentonio Well-Known Member

    +5,387
    France
    Atheist
    Single
    No it isn't. This is completely and utterly wrong.

    Please quote exactly where the founders said impeachment shouldn't be used in cases of wrongdoing unless it was absolutely earth shattering. You can't because it doesn't exist.

    Hamilton on impeachment:

    "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

    Abuse or violation of some public trust. He could not have been any more clear, and no matter how hard Donald and his sycophants want to pretend that they actually meant something else entirely, they don't get to rewrite history to suit their desires.
     
  19. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +3,367
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    But everybody keeps repeating the claim that "only Democrats voted for impeachment" so I was wondering if i missed an announcement that he had joined the Democratic Party.
     
  20. Bodhicitta

    Bodhicitta Member Supporter

    106
    +47
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    Rethinking this notion a little more, suggest changing the wording of the proposed amendment to the House section. The House section does not apply only to the office of President. This change below permits a simple majority vote for all other impeachments of judges, members etc.

    No President shall be impeached without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
Loading...