Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

Surely you remember that it was the big orange clown that first won the Republican primaries and then beat the Democrat candidate in the general election? Isn't that how it works? I'm a Trump supporter and my character has never been questioned by anyone who knew me well enough to do so.

The courts do have a role in impeachment when there is a question of which power takes precedent.

 

Your post demonstrates that do not understand the argument presented in the OP.

Article II specified that Trump refused to answer "legal" subpoenas.
On what authority does the House determine that a subpoena is "legal"?

 

Ad hominem personal attacks and false charges of plagiarism are not very persuasive.

Substantive rebuttal works better. Please try again.

This may help explain why the Founders created a system of checked and balanced divided government as opposed to one that encouraged cooperation and unity.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
COMMON SENSE, Thomas Paine.
https://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/commonsense/sense2.htm

 

This obvious falsehood "Trump hates everybody but himself" undermines the credibility of the rest of your argument.

 

Say what you like about Trump and Pence, but why are you launching this empty attack on the "character" and "class" of those who disagree with you here?

 

You are confused. While congressional subpoenas can indeed be legal and are quite common, that does not mean that ALL congressional subpoenas are legal. The same principle applies to subpoenas from any jurisdiction in the country. The final say as to what is or isnt legal lies with the judicial branch. A perfect example would be privileged health information. If the Congress were to subpoena a person's health records, that would not be legally binding in most cases because health information has been deemed legally private via the HIPAA privacy rule. The Congress could argue that their need to know supercedes the person's right to medical privacy, but it would ultimately be up to the courts to make that final determination. This notion that you are pushing which is that congressional subpoenas are deemed legal thus all congressional subpoenas are legally binding is completely bogus and bereft of reality.

 

It's not an attack its truth!
There is an ideology that an extreme right faction of the US is fighting for. They are willing to get it at any means and it shows. It's about Socially conservative socially orthodox christianity guns and a nation free of immigrants.

Instead of being honest about their intentions they just keep coming up with excuses for Trumps behavior and refuse to act in any way that would preserve the constitution. Trump is getting them judges and thats all they want. If they were honest about their plans said Trump crossed a line and violated the constitution and then voted to convict him, and have Pence lead the ideology totally fine but stop lying, stop pretending that Trump has done nothing wrong, stop pretending like the impeachment is partisan like there are someone nonsense procedural process that needs to be done.

If Obama had done 1/10th of what Trump had done they would have impeach him and removed him from office, its a ****ing fact so excuse me for being done with the **** that the hardline Trump supports keep saying!

 

A Congressional Subpoena is legal unless and until a Court rules otherwise.

You have it backwards

 

This is, of course, false. You cannot demonstrate any such thing to be true.

 

I'm not sure which is worse - Republicans suddenly trying to argue that Congress has no oversight power, or that they're completely ignoring Trump's wrong-doing and supporting his efforts to cover up all evidence and testimony that could be harmful to him.

 

Yes but he is saying that the subpoenas are not valid, that is a legal issue for the court not congress, if the subpoenas are not legal then the house cannot call it contempt.

I have nothing but contempt for the house Democrats. If i was before congress i would turn my back on Democrats as they questioned me and answer Republican questions fully and respectfully.

Yes house Republicans are better people and better leaders than house Democrats.

Boils down to good vs evil, sorry.

 

Pay better attention.

 

Its almost as of they don't want to understand.

 

Congressional subpoenas are upheld all the time. They're all illegal?

 

How does such "sole power" empower the House of Representatives to override the Constitutional protections guaranteed to us all?

 

And nobody is compelled to comply until the court says they are compelled.
The chicken shits should have had a judge compell him, but they decided to be loud mouthed chicken shits instead

 

Some of A is B.
Therefore all of A is B.
Argument void of logic

 

I have yet to see where that has happened at all. Do you have an example?

 

They seem to want to believe that the constitution gives the majority party in the house cart clanch (however you spell it)to do whatever they want as long as it's prefaced by " impeachment "

 

One of the articles of impeachment was for defying House subpoenas. Only the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to proclaim whether, or not, such subpoenas have merit.

On this point, the House of Representatives have declared themselves to be superior to both the executive and judicial branches.

The Constitution does not grant the House of Representatives the sole power to summarily declare themselves to be the supreme rulers of the nation.

 

I'd offer a slight but important correction.

It's most of the Democrats in the house only. Not the whole house of representatives..

 

So when democrats are accused of inappropriate behavior or consensual acts unbecoming of their office, they have a moral duty to resign but whenever its a republican its "due process"

The supreme court ruled 9-0 that the president must hand over relevant documents, they need not rule again, if they must then Conservatives can never again say a damn thing about precedent when it comes to guns or any other issue they don't like because 'every case is different"

 

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the subpoenas levied against the Trump administration.

No two cases are the same.

 

They don't have to rule on every subpoena, they simply need to rule on whether the house has the authority to issue them and whether a president can refuse to comply, they did that with Nixon and it was 9-0 in favor of the house.