(02-01-2020, 02:20 AM)pirkster Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 07:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: Oh really? Specifically where in the federalist papers? Which one? Is there a remedy to make us more like what the founders intended, going forward?

You flap your gums an awful lot for someone who has no substance to add, other than bringing questions to things you should already know if you were worthy to debate at the adult table.

Like I've advised you before, if your knowledge is slight (which yours demonstrably is) it would benefit you to do more listening than talking.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819...mpeachment


"... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.

In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

Lol.  I make no statement, ask only questions, and, you admonish me to listen more than I talk.
For all the knowledge you claim to have, your understanding of how conversations work is lacking. I haven't met you, but I would imagine your personality is as well. 
Now that gratuitous insults are out of the way, yes, I am very familiar with that particular NPR article and with Federalist 69. 
Hamilton is saying that impeachments will usually stir up partisan passions.
The mere fact that the process, this time, became partisan is not evidence that anything was wrong with the process.  Partisanship is typical.
What does Hamilton go on to say about the Senate.  He compares Senators to the Supreme Court.   What does he say about them?

---

(02-01-2020, 01:30 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Think about the argument put forth by the left.  They impeached the president for mounting a legal defense.  Think about that for a minute.  They literally made the argument that Adam Schiffs lack of patience was more important than due process.  This wasnt an impeachment, it was a mockery of the constitution, the framers and an exercise in Legislative Supremacy.  

But jj, it was a political process....  not criminal.  The president doesnt have RIGHTS?  I call b.s.  Congress shall make no LAW limiting etc.  But jj, it's not a LAW it's a rule.  Ok.  So the congress can adopt a rule allowing it to subpoena someone to a hearing bar them from meaningful legal representation, bankrupt them with cost of testifying before congress, lie about and smear them from behind state microphones, call witnesses brought by the state to smear me in public with no means of objection or legal recourse, and if I misstate that I was at home on friday not saturday then I'm subject to perjury and prison.  Any attempt to defend myself is used as proof of my guilt.  That's the system you want?  That's what your advocating for?  Fine.  But dont tell me Trumps the @$%/ Dictator!

Do you enjoy talking to yourself?

---