Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(12-18-2019, 05:15 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 03:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In 18th century English,
"High crimes" = using power not granted, or abusing power that was granted, or refusing to comply with duly enacted laws. 
"Misdemeanors" = conduct unbecoming, bad appearances.  Drunkenness or brawling in public, cursing.

Obama did a few high crimes because he acted where Congress refused to act, but this was only because Congress didn't want to go on record.  Secretly, a majority in Congress agreed with DACA, which is why articles of impeachment were not written for DACA.

But Obama did no misdemeanors.

---

It's not likely that the constitution would be amended again, but it's not impossible either.

Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

I bet you can unravel "for the purposes of a well regulated militia" to your satisfaction, you seem to only be confused about things when they conflict with your worldview.

(12-18-2019, 01:58 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 01:16 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]So ... everyone then?

Also, Hamilton worried that it'd be used on the basis of political differences than by innocence or guilt. I haven't read that the original meaning of misdemeanor was simply a 'bad appearance', but Samuel Johnson's dictionary said, in 1755, that it was an 'offence' or 'ill behavior' lesser than an 'atrocious crime'. While 'ill behavior' would indicate a low threshold on its own, when it's compared to an 'atrocious crime', it implies that it's a crime of lesser significance and not just 'behavior'.

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

(12-18-2019, 01:48 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

You do know that House is the trial and Senate is the jury right?

(12-18-2019, 08:29 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 01:58 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

You do know that House is the trial and Senate is the jury right?

The Senate is not a jury. The Constitution only says that Senators must be on "oath or affirmation" while the proceedings occur but it does not specify what that oath or affirmation is. The Constitution goes on to say that all trials shall have juries except for impeachments. So the Senate is not a jury. Rehnquist said these things from the dias in 1999.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that if the Democrats controlled the Senate, an American president would he impeached because they didn't like him?

This is some scary crap.

(12-18-2019, 09:53 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone else find it disturbing that if the Democrats controlled the Senate, an American president would he impeached because they didn't like him?

This is some scary crap.

if 67 out of 100 senators disagree with the president that sharply,  the nation has bigger problems. You would have to wonder, mathematically, how that happened.

(12-18-2019, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 09:53 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone else find it disturbing that if the Democrats controlled the Senate, an American president would he impeached because they didn't like him?

This is some scary crap.

if 67 out of 100 senators disagree with the president that sharply,  the nation has bigger problems. You would have to wonder, mathematically, how that happened.

Our nation has problems?

(12-18-2019, 08:23 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 05:15 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

I bet you can unravel "for the purposes of a well regulated militia" to your satisfaction, you seem to only be confused about things when they conflict with your worldview.

I'm not confused. Are you confused?

I'm looking for an answer to something I'm willing to admit I don't fully know, but he isn't providing an answer to something he said was already established. Maybe you can cite it for him, or am I expecting too much from you?

(12-18-2019, 08:23 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 05:15 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

I bet you can unravel "for the purposes of a well regulated militia" to your satisfaction, you seem to only be confused about things when they conflict with your worldview.

So the meaning of a comma.... ? Does that confound you as well?

Looks like the Crypt Keeper isn't going to send the articles to the Senate.

As the evidence is evident, I Concur w/the Impeachment of Trump. The sad thing of it is, is that the leader of Congress has already stated that "He's not going anywhere". Impeached but he may remain in office.

Time Will Tell.

NH3...

(12-19-2019, 02:18 AM)NH3 Wrote: [ -> ]As the evidence is evident, I Concur w/the Impeachment of Trump. The sad thing of it is, is that the leader of Congress has already stated that "He's not going anywhere". Impeached but he may remain in office.

Time Will Tell.

NH3...

The evidence is nothing of the sort.

I've said it before, demeanor is your outward appearance. A misdemeanor is a negative outward appearance. If Trump was a drunk, that is not illegal. If he gave a speech while intoxicated, it would be perfectly within the rights of the House to impeach him for this misdemeanor. It's not criminal, but his outward appearance does not reflect the dignity of the office. You could impeach a President for hitting on the Queen. That's not criminal, but it would reflect poorly on the US. Remember, the President is primarily a figurehead, and if they are tarnishing that role, they can be impeached. If Democrats had the balls to impeach him for his behavior, they would have had more support than they would for manufacturing criminal charges.

I don't think it would have affected him, because the American people knew who he was when they elected him. In fact, some people voted for him BECAUSE he would be uncouth. As I posted before, no one has really been brought down by behavior alone. Most people in congress have opted to let the reputation hit be enough to oust the offender at the next election. Impeachments have largely been reserved for criminal behaviors. The idea with impeachment, though, is that if they rolled the dice because they thought his behavior was unacceptable and the American public didn't agree with them, it would affect their political careers. It has, and it is going to. Obviously not in the deep blue states, but in swing districts some of these politicians are in trouble. That's working as intended.

Also, I wouldn't worry about removal. It would be dang near impossible for one party to have a super majority and not be doing the will of the people. If the Dems can get that many seats, most Americans aren't going to be upset if they remove someone from office. If they do, that super majority won't be a thing in the next election.

Also, for the poster looking for a definition of misdemeanor, here you go:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at...ys-a-crime

(12-18-2019, 09:53 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone else find it disturbing that if the Democrats controlled the Senate, an American president would he impeached because they didn't like him?

This is some scary crap.

It disturbs me more that our highly educated Senate and House Officials can't evaluate charges independent of their party affiliation.  

Regarding your question, he same exact thing was going on with the Clinton impeachment.  It's just that now the tables have been turned.

Yes, it's a bad precedence that the "other party" will always go after the President.

I question why the 2+ party system is even necessary.  Let's just vote for local and national candidates in a single vote.  Candidates won't have a party affiliation but can cite their position on key issues for the people to determine their vote.



CLINTON 

Voting in the House of Representatives
Accusation
Perjury
Votes in favor
228
Votes against
206
Result
Approved


Accusation
Obstruction of justice
Votes in favor
221
Votes against
212
Result
Approved


Voting in the Senate
Accusation
Perjury
Votes in favor
45
Votes against
55
Result
Fail

Accusation
Obstruction of justice
Votes in favor
50
Votes against
50
Result
Fail

(12-19-2019, 02:18 AM)NH3 Wrote: [ -> ]As the evidence is evident, I Concur w/the Impeachment of Trump. The sad thing of it is, is that the leader of Congress has already stated that "He's not going anywhere". Impeached but he may remain in office.

Time Will Tell.

NH3...

The leader of Congress didn't say that. The leader of Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

(12-18-2019, 11:28 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like the Crypt Keeper isn't going to send the articles to the Senate.

(12-19-2019, 09:38 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2019, 02:18 AM)NH3 Wrote: [ -> ]As the evidence is evident, I Concur w/the Impeachment of Trump. The sad thing of it is, is that the leader of Congress has already stated that "He's not going anywhere". Impeached but he may remain in office.

Time Will Tell.

NH3...

The leader of Congress didn't say that. The leader of Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

There is no leader of Congress, you have a Speaker in the House and a President in the Senate. Both sides make up the Congress.

(12-19-2019, 09:26 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 09:53 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone else find it disturbing that if the Democrats controlled the Senate, an American president would he impeached because they didn't like him?

This is some scary crap.

It disturbs me more that our highly educated Senate and House Officials can't evaluate charges independent of their party affiliation.  

Regarding your question, he same exact thing was going on with the Clinton impeachment.  It's just that now the tables have been turned.

Yes, it's a bad precedence that the "other party" will always go after the President.

I question why the 2+ party system is even necessary.  Let's just vote for local and national candidates in a single vote.  Candidates won't have a party affiliation but can cite their position on key issues for the people to determine their vote.



CLINTON 

Voting in the House of Representatives
Accusation
Perjury
Votes in favor
228
Votes against
206
Result
Approved


Accusation
Obstruction of justice
Votes in favor
221
Votes against
212
Result
Approved


Voting in the Senate
Accusation
Perjury
Votes in favor
45
Votes against
55
Result
Fail

Accusation
Obstruction of justice
Votes in favor
50
Votes against
50
Result
Fail

You would need the power to change the law in all 50 states to make anything like that happen.  In Florida we already vote for all state offices on the same day as the federal elections.  The issue is that our state (and most states) have a lot of rules about partisan, multi-ballot, primary elections and a lot of good people don't want to play along with that anymore.  They don't participate in the primaries, so the primaries produce extremely partisan candidates.  California, Washington, and Lousiana have departed from that system, but that's just 3 out of 50 states.  The other 47 states still have processes that prioritize party affiliation, and they send candidates to Washington DC that will bring partisan perspectives and create a partisan national conversation that drowns out any less-partisan state level conversation.  If anything, putting our state elections on a different day from federal elections might help.  But it's hard to expect anything to meaningfully change unless they make a federal law changing how primary elections for federal office should work.

(12-18-2019, 08:23 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]I bet you can unravel "for the purposes of a well regulated militia" to your satisfaction, you seem to only be confused about things when they conflict with your worldview.

You can't even quote the actual text without perverting it.

(12-18-2019, 08:23 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2019, 05:15 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

I bet you can unravel "for the purposes of a well regulated militia" to your satisfaction, you seem to only be confused about things when they conflict with your worldview.

That isnt the statement and your error modifies the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment. It also explains your completely wrong understanding of its application.

The stock market did not respond to Pelosi and her goons.