WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump (Day Six)

Accepting, not tolerant. Tolerance just means to put up with people. And that's where we were and that's why we're where we are right now: We're tired of just putting up with crap. We live in a society that's so judgmental, it's insane. So what if X person doesn't share your view, there are other views that you can share.

 

Which is achieved through greater freedom, not less. Sounds to me as if you just want to be the boss.

 

I'm not sure 8 know the specifica of the Lawrence tribe flip. What happened?

 

Guilty as charged

 

A real simple and basic flaw.

How were the founding fathers ever going to include impeachment as an offense if the underlying action involved things like an airplane, a telephone, or the internet?

They had to leave impeachment vague because of those - and other potential - developments which they could not foresee.

Also, can we be real about what the founding fathers would think if they watched this impeachment proceeding?

Their primary concern would not be about the "state of the country", it would be, "Why are all these women and minorities just standing around here acting like the white men?"

 

I reckon you blokes read far too much into the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created. For me, what they delivered on impeachment (and 2A) was appallingly short-sighted and cheap.

 

Just gonna point out the irony of using the minority viewpoints of men about an objective fact from 400 years ago as the justification for accepting the minority viewpoints of men about a legal interpretation of a 200 year old document

 

Oh I agree. The 10th amendment, for example, if it were strictly enforced would mean that federal governments could have no say over things like air travel or highways or the internet.

 

He was executing the policy. Having the authority to carry it out doesn’t mean he set the policy. The requirements came from the treason.

 

I must have missed the carter page campaign for president! And this was OUR DOJ and Russia was helping trump. Hardly unreasonable to see if they were in cahoots. Maybe via his russian connected campaign manager....

 

The precious majority view, is essentially a no-confidence vote. A power that is not enumerated within the Constitution. If we had said no-confidence vote, our politics would be drastically changed.(Actually, ALA Britain who has numerous elections.). So if you think your majority view is perfectly in line with what the Framers thought: No, not quite. Otherwise, they would've given us no-confidence and been done with it.

This majority view, is the academic/legal view that these opinions want to take now. Alright, fine. But just like with the House and Subpoenas, we're going to have to go through a process to get this change. State Amendments take 3/4ths of the State. And/or they are approved congressionally in legislation.

 

Technically, they don't. The States simply consented. Arguably, our consent is through the fiat of the civil war and the national strength of the US army(And the CIA/FBI don't lack tech themselves.) There will probably never be a civil revolt in America, ever again in part. But also due to this part, there's a suffrage of living in the country. That State/personal politics may forever be at the whim of Washington D.C

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/101015/10-wealthiest-states-united-states.asp

(Maryland's close proximity to Washington proves the point.)

Until the minority view is accepted and respected in America, Van Buren's idea of creating a second party for political division is more hollow and empty then constitutional arguments on whether or not the framers intended for impeachment to be based on criminal code of law or not.

 

Impeachment mentions specific laws: treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors (misdemeanors meant high crimes in those days). Treason doesn't change with the invention of the cell phone.

What Trump is accused of is not a high crime or treason. It's a parking ticket offense.

 

They testified to what they heard about. When asked if they had direct knowledge they testified no.

 

So what? So was Trump. And Biden was quite clear it was HIS authority and HIS decision.

 

Indeed, and upon that the Dem Party's leadership voted for impeachment.

 

It was the treasury depts conditions, on a treasury dept loan.

 

It was led by Biden and he was issuing the orders and the administration was threatening withhold aid authorized by Congress.

 

It was authorized by the treasury as were the conditions.

 

By Congress. Treasury doesn't decide on loan guaranties it is only an administrator. It only disburses what Congress authorizes. And the Obama administration threaten Ukraine with it.

 

Oh I see so Ukraine was conducting an investigation of the impoundment act? Lol

 

Were there Republican Senators who joined in the pursuit of getting the prosecutor fired?

 

You could work to change it, if you were a citizen.

 

Which proves what? The majority of the SCOTUS once approved of Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, they were wrong.

Unlike the Founders. It's no secret liberal law professors honor the Constitution like pigeons honor statues.

Maxine's lawless view is what Banana Republics do, not that she is near intelligent enough to take in Dershowitz's fantastic presentation. He is a rare liberal who values the Constitution and civil liberties above partisan politics.

 

The Founders specifically rejected the Parliamentary model where leaders serve at the whim of the legislature.

And what did Trump do? The aid was given and no investigation was announced. You don't get to impeach someone for thinking about doing something that isn't even a crime.