Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) of 67261

<<The main issue, right now, is whether the Republican Party can subvert the Constitution and remove a democratically elected President of an opposing political party>> I'd like to clarify one point - the Constitution obviously provides for impeachment, so voting in favor of hearings, or actually impeaching a President is definitely Constitutional, even assuming that the Senate had 70 Republicans in it, all of whom vote to impeach (thereby bypassing the original Constitutional check on partisanship). However, legal doesn't mean right. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. The process was put in place for a reason, and using the rules for any other reason would be wrong. I am not trying to define what that original reason was, and I'm not commenting on whether the current situation would be right or wrong. It's just that when I read things like "subvert the Constitution" it makes me defensive. I believe it is possible for an impeachment hearing to be legal, but still go against the original intent. Is that what you are describing, and if so, in what way would the current process go against the intent of the Constitution?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next