The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Missing Seven Words from the Constitution.

Ya started hijacking your own thread talking about why trump did what he did not me.

 

LOL, sure. We don need no stinkin evidence!

 

"All persons are equal before the law." There was a huge debate over whether to adopt "All persons are equal." As a compromise, "before the law" was added and it passed. That Johnson was a stupid man and segregationist is part of history. He hated Lincoln and attempted to reverse every piece of legislation Lincoln enacted. Sound familiar? The rest of your post is accurate historically. These are just a few tidbits I added.

Special thanks to DT for a great post.

 

So this is going to be the new "our democracy," the new unworkably vague and inaccurate abstraction that the Left is going to use as a propaganda slogan. Well at least they are consistent in their childlike thinking an in appealing to their childlike, emotional blocs.

The reason that our laws, justice system and interpretive jurisprudence are based on the specifics of the 14th Amendment and other statutes/cases, and not windy homilies like "all persons are equal before the law" is that you cannot found anything rational and lasting on a vague abstraction that can be twisted in the wind at will by factional interests towards unjust results, no matter to whom they are applied or by whom, which is -exactly- what the Democrats are doing by appealing to it. Josef Stalin can appeal to "all persons are equal before the law," and use it to murder and disappear opposition in the dead of night.

"All persons are equal before the law." WHAT LAW? WHOSE? The Federal Government's? A state's? The next door state's? The liquor board? Fish n Game? The people? The noose's law? My law? Law of the jungle? Judge Judy? Judge Dredd? Judge Roy Bean?

Judge Roy Bean makes for a funny movie, in it he was constantly, amusingly reversing the phrase "the law is the handmaiden of justice" into "justice is the handmaiden of the law" and vice versa. Malleable slogans such as "all persons are equal before the law" are fine for rallying cries, political rallies and bluster. But as far as the basis of a just, coherent legal system? No, not remotely close.

There's a reason phrases such as "all persons are equal before the law" are only broad and general in our law, and a reason why they are debated, and it has nothing to do with addled racist drivel such as in the OP. It has nothing to do with reserving some special rights to elites. Vague language like that is not and should never supersede specific wording in specific statutes. It's inherently UNJUST without more.

We must have and do have a SPECIFIC body of law, as to -exactly- WHICH law applies, WHAT specific elements are involved, WHERE it applies, to WHOM it applies, WHO may enforce it, HOW it is enforced, WHERE it may be enforced, WHAT are the possible defenses, WHO is immune, WHO is not, HOW it can be amended, WHAT are the penalties., etc.?

Otherwise we are just Judge Roy Bean, a parody of a legal system with very real, dire, unjust consequences for the citizenry.

And thanks so much for wasting my time with the endless, absurd, inaccurate, double digit IQ product "source" in the OP. If I wanted to read something on that level of discourse, I'd have dug the comic book collection out of the basement or found a copy of Us magazine.

 

Denial of the factual EVIDENCE establishing that your BLOTUS has committed CRIMES does not make them disappear.

 

Thank you for establishing that the cognitive dissonance amongst BLOTUS supporters does exist.

 

Stop the idiocy of referring to President Trump as "Blotus" and I will be glad to explain how the OP is in error in a number of ways.

 

But there is no evidence. Only suggestion, innuendo, opinion, wishes. Sorry, you need to come to grips with that.

 

Silly comment no one sane goes to a court room knowing full well that no matter what the facts are they will vote to convict you.

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted FTR!

 

Obviously you haven't come to grips with that.

 

Yet MORE ironic PROJECTION!

 

What factual EVIDENCE?

 

What CRIMES?

 

What kind of babble is that?

 

Wow...that was a lot of revisionist history. Perhaps you should study up on the aftermath of the Civil War yourself instead of listening to your twitter feed.

 

The Johnson impeachment story is essentially correct. Not sure the post-Civil War battles between the military and the KKK were as large or larger than the worst battles of the Civil War itself, but the basic point is understood. On the seven words, the Courts have pretty much upheld the principle, with a few notable exceptions. In respect to an impeachment that never happened - Nixon's resignation spared him - I believe the point was made by the Supreme Court, which upheld a lower Court decision, that no one is above the law. That led to the President having to honor the subpoena, which required him to hand over the incriminating taped conversations in the Oval Office. That led to the discovery of the "missing 18 minutes," which Nixon's Secretary (Rosemary Woods?) claimed to have accidentally erased. But what was there was bad enough and it was the Congressional Republican leadership that eventually went to the White House and told Nixon he didn't have the Votes in the House or the Senate to survive removal from office. He resigned as a result, thus escaping the legacy of being the only President to be removed from office based on conviction on impeachment.
Sooo...it comes down to Johnson securing the vote of a sufficient number of "moderate Republicans" to escape the 2/3rds Senate majority required for conviction. On Clinton, I suspect the situation is similar to Trump's. A pro-impeachment House, with an anti-impeachment Senate, based on the difference in majorities required in each chamber. If the House required a two-thirds House majority, it's doubtful Johnson or Clinton would have ever been impeached.

An interesting question to discuss might be why did the founders create such a low bar (a simple majority) in the House for impeachment, but such a high bar for conviction on impeachment in the Senate (a 2/3rds majority)? Almost as if they were asking for trouble.

My own guess is that it preserved the "conservative bias" of the Constitution...the House simple majority allowed northern anti-federalists to "vent," but gave actual removal power to the Southern federalists, the most prominent of whom, at the Convention, were Washington and Madison. And, I'd add that "the electorate" in 1787 wasn't what it was at the time of Johnson's or Clinton's impeachments...since it has been expanding over time with the granting of suffrage to former slaves and women. So...I expect that in the future "the impeachment clause" will be used more and more as a "vote of confidence."

Another interesting question for Marxists or neo-Marxists is why none of the impeached or about to be impeached (Johnson, Nixon, Clinton and Trump) were members of "the establishment."

 

The white nationalists are the one who are writing the revisionist history.

 

I agree with the almost everything you posted however could you please define what you mean by "the establishment"?

Johnson was definitely a member of the Southern racist establishment which is how he survived the Senate trial. Nixon has very much a member of the GOP establishment and Clinton was a bona fide member of the Dem establishment.

 

I certainly hope that you aren't calling me a white nationalist?

In anycase, read this: LINK: About President Johnson

It's not quite as vitriolic as the tweet that you got your "history" from. And tells exactly why Johnson got impeached and who the deciding vote was cast by...who was a Radical Republican.

 

I refrain from casting aspersions on other members since that is a rule violation.

Johnson was a racist POS that deserved to be impeached and removed from office.

However the primary point of the topic is to show the PARALLELS between Johnson and the BLOTUS and the missing 7 words in the Constitution.

 

Hard to define..."polite society," I suppose. Old families...old money. But, it doesn't necessarily depend on one or the other. Lot of poor "gentry" in the South. Johnson grew up poor, with virtually no education. Historians have noted that he seemed to have an "inferiority complex," which I suppose means a dislike of those who were born into better circumstances. Nixon was also from "humble beginnings," and noted by some historians for his IC as well. Clinton doesn't seem to have been bothered by an IC, but never found a contradiction between public service and acquiring wealth, the latter primarily after his Presidency. Trump was born into wealth, but the Trump's were never part of "polite society." His sensitivity to any and all criticism would indicate to me a possible IC. He seems to have almost a paranoid fear of failure, with "failure" defined as ANY criticism whatsoever.
Of course, the same description could apply to many Presidents were were NOT impeached as well...Washington and Lincoln as examples...both of whom married into money.
But, I don't disagree with your last sentence either.

 

Yes, he was racist. So was Lincoln. If he hadn't been assassinated he wanted to deport all black people. Did you know that? He also wanted to go easy on the southern states compared to others. And those Radical Republican's weren't as innocent as your Tweet makes them out to be. There's a reason those 7 words didn't get into the 14th Amendment. And it wasn't fear of the Southern States not joining back in because the Radical Republicans didn't care if they rejoined or not. They were still going to treat them as a subjugated territory.

There are no parallels between Johnson and Trump. Trump isn't racist for one, despite the media's attempt to portray him as such. However there IS a parallel between the Radical Republicans and the Democratic Party of today. The Radical Republicans also attempted to ram rod impeachment through. And they lost, by one vote that came from a Radical Republican who had a conscience and an awareness of the precedent being set for future Congressional actions.

Tell me, did you read that link I gave? That is of course just the beginning as it doesn't talk about everything. But its a good basic start of Johnson's impeachment.

 

So its finally time to repeal racist laws like Affirmative Action? About freaking time someone finally took notice of the Constitution...