Levin: Impeachment Not Whatever the
House of Representatives Says —
‘That’s a Lie’
Breitbart Clips,
by
Jeff Poor
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
11/25/2019 9:31:55 AM
During the Sunday broadcast of his “Life, Liberty & Levin” program on the Fox News Channel, host Mark Levin, author of “Unfreedom of the Press,” argued against the notion that impeachment can be “whatever the House of Representatives says it is.” Levin called that claim a “lie,” and pointed to the impeachment clause in the Constitution, which defines the term.“No president, in fact, nobody facing impeachment has ever in American history been treated this way,” Levin said. “Now let’s look at the impeachment clause. You have individuals quoting
Reply 1 - Posted by:
BillW. 11/25/2019 9:43:14 AM (No. 244976)
I watched this Levin program. He was HOT, playing well-edited key moments from last week's scam hearings. Good for him. Now, I'd like to see the Senate take its turn, though I wouldn't trust Schiff-lefss and the others Dems under oath and more than I'd trust them not to try stealing the 2020 election. KAG2020
19 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
mathman 11/25/2019 10:03:32 AM (No. 245009)
The trouble lies in the "high crimes and misdemeanors" phrase.
Originalists are persons who believe that documents written at a certain place and time should be understood with respect to the prevailing method of comprehension at that place and time. In other words, the readers or hearers of an utterance would use contemporary standards in interpreting and utterance.
Not all persons are originalists. There are some who wish to interpret words in a contemporary way, using current modes of understanding. Thus a shadow of an emanation gave us the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The interpretation was not in the text, but had to be found there by implication or divination. Similarly, the non-tax status of the Obamacare payment was found, by interpretation, to be a tax.
So those in the House who are not originalists are free to interpret the impeachment clause to mean whatever they want. Like, "we don't like you, and never did".
This, as Justice Thomas has frequently pointed out, is a slippery slope, as our system of laws, contracts, and agreements is based on original documents. Far better to strictly interpret a document by what it says, rather than what you "find" in it. That was the whole point of a written Constitution, after all. And it has stood us in good stead for over 220 years.
So the Members of the House will just have to face their voters in November 2020. It should be very interesting.
9 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
zoidberg 11/25/2019 11:16:10 AM (No. 245110)
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, 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."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 65
6 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
msjena 11/25/2019 11:32:10 AM (No. 245137)
I read that in the Andrew Johnson impeachment proceedings, the House initially did not impeach because they had no evidence of a crime. Only later, when Johnson fired a cabinet member in violation of a since-repealed law did they vote to impeach. With both Nixon and Clinton, there was evidence of a crime. With Clinton, the Special Counsel report cited him for perjury and obstruction. I believe Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the independent counsel based on evidence of obstruction. It would be unprecedented for the House to impeach based on what amounts to foreign policy they disagree with. It is not a crime to put conditions on foreign aid, even assuming that was done here (the evidence doesn't support it). The whole idea of bribery is ludicrous. Trump didn't attempt to bribe the Ukrainians. That would require actually communicating an offer of money for a specific act. An example would be trying to pay off a judge or juror. Since Trump never mentioned the aid money, there was no possible bribe. Plus, the idea that conditioning foreign aid on investigating corruption is bribery completely distorts the normal conduct of foreign relations.
6 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 11/25/2019 1:23:57 PM (No. 245293)
True and it infuriates me to no end the amount of people who are just accepting that the House is doing this, even though they are acting like Soviets outside the law. Every single person should be absolutely outraged over this kabuki, and should be burning up the democrat lines of communication.
Hurt feelings and hearsay are not valid in a court of law, and they should not be allowed in congress either. It is like people don't get that this WILL trickle down into our local jurisdictions, it always does. A great many of the members of congress come from those local jurisdictions and are very politically ambitious. The fact that Nanny Bloomberg has already announced his refusal to investigate any democrat corruption is also most telling.
2 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
RedWhite&Blue2 11/25/2019 1:47:27 PM (No. 245326)
Love his rants
Love to emulate his rants
He’s the Great One!
Veterans for truth
Veterans for Trump 2020
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DVC 11/25/2019 3:20:10 PM (No. 245399)
The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors". Not "anything you want".
2 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
MDConservative 11/25/2019 3:49:51 PM (No. 245432)
The Constitution also says the House "shall have the sole power of impeachment." So, impeachment is what the House says it is. If they pass faulty articles, the Senate can always fail to convict. So, Levin can rant all he likes...good TV.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)