Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (17453)	12/16/1998 9:30:00 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 18056

Zeev, if Tippet tries to sue you for convoluted logic, I promise to testify on your behalf as a character witness. <G> And, I know better than to try to get into Talmudic arguments with anyone of your intellectual capacity. What I CAN argue is that what the Constitution says is what it means. It clearly says that the House has "the sole Power of Impeachment." The Senate "shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments," and "Judgement ... shall not extend further than to removal from Office ... [although if convicted he] shall be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law." The facts you cite about the house finding Nixon's signature "not impeachable" illustrates the point. (Notwithstanding that Nixon was relying on an accountant who prepared the tax return, and the error only became an error because of a court case decided after the return was filed). It is the house that decides what is and is not an impeachable offense, not all the ivory tower academicians between here and Topeka. Not the jerk, Dershowicz (sp?). Not you, not the Supreme Court. The House. Ultimately, I suppose that you and I sort of decide, because we get to elect our Representatives, but I'm sure you'll agree that that is a bit of a stretch. Whether or not Clinton committed perjury, etc, is up to the Senate to decide. Once the House makes the accusation, it must go to trial in the Senate. Again, it makes no difference what anybody says about what constitutes the crimes alleged, it is up to the Senate to decide, as in a court of law. It is for them to decide if "alone" means "alone in a room" or "alone in the universe." And "is" and all the other details that people want to quibble about. You distort the meaning of "diplomatic immunity." It is to prevent recriminations, as you say, but it is not intended as a blanket immunity from all crimes. What the Constitution provides for is that foreign officials are subject to our laws, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction; most city prosecutors are not prepared to take their traffic cases to the Supremes. But, it is also a red herring for the discussion at hand. The President is not a "diplomat" (man, we could sure get another discussion going with that one!). He gets no special treatment under the Constitution except to be immune from criminal prosecution WHILE HE HOLDS OFFICE. If the Prez is impeached and convicted for a crime, the maximum sentence the Senate can impose is to remove him from office; at that point he is just like anyone else and subject to whatever the courts may impose. Finally, Zeev, it is not us, or the Congress, that is weakening the Office of the Presidency; it is the incumbent slimeball that disparages it, cheapens it, and makes it an office of lying, cheating, stealing, and philandering. The Constitution provides the remedy to make it an office of Honor once again. jim