We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Impeachment AND Conviction, 25th Amendment or Censure

Removal from office inability

  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#21 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,228 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:05 PM

Yes, indeed Trump needs to learn that last part about the Congress, the Supreme Court and all the federal judiciary.

But I just would remind everybody in the United States that the American government gets its power from the people - - and this President did not even win the popular vote, even if he is legally the president.

In a democracy, the power always resides with the people.

I think some people spend far too much time worrying about Thomas Jefferson's Democratic party--

it's more like, will the Republican Party even be around in the next decade.LOL

 

The USA is a republic and not a democracy.   If it was a democracy there wouldn't be an Electoral College or a US Senate. But I'm sure you know that.

 

Oh, and it is silly for any partisan to believe the other party will not be around in the next decade.  

 

The Dems haven't been able to win a majority in any of the previous elections and the GOP has control over the vast majority of the states and the 2018 election hasn't even taken place and you say 'it's more like, will the Republican Party even be around'.    Sorry but that is just silly talk  (or you're really an optimist!).

 

I'm not a member of the GOP but I understand that the way the two party system is set up neither the Dem or GOP party are going away anytime soon.   BUT I am hoping the Dem party is able to get their act together so they make major gains in 2018 and 2030 to reduce the power of the GOP in DC 

 

(but in CA,  were the Dems have a 2\3 majority, I want the GOP to make gains).     I.e. I dislike when EITHER party has too much power since power corrupts and a party with too much power often goes off the rails (like the CA bullet train idea!).


  • NipkowDisc likes this

#22 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,228 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:03 PM

The one who needs to acquiesce to the power of the Congress and Supreme Court is the President. In his comments and actions he has shown that he feels he is not a co-equal branch of government with them, as outlined by the Constitution. This lawsuit is not at all frivolous, and has nothing to do with the Dems' loss, but goes to the core of the Constitutional separation of powers, and the abuse of said separation of powers by the executive branch.

 

Note that ALL Americans have to acquiesce to the power of the Congress,  Supreme Count and the President as defined by the US Constitution.    I do agree that the lawsuit is about the power of the President to pardon someone that was convicted for a crime of defying a Federal Court order (a misdemeanor).    This is why I'm interested in what Obama would have to say.   Most Presidents,  regardless of party, do not wish to weaken the power of the office,  so I wonder if Obama feels this was an abuse of power or not.   Note that the SC found that Obama abused the power of his office and it is my understanding he didn't agree with those rulings.



#23 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,140 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:02 PM

Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy either. LOL
  • Arturo, NipkowDisc and film lover 293 like this

#24 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,707 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:01 PM

Yes, indeed Trump needs to learn that last part about the Congress, the Supreme Court and all the federal judiciary.

But I just would remind everybody in the United States that the American government gets its power from the people - - and this President did not even win the popular vote, even if he is legally the president.

In a democracy, the power always resides with the people.

I think some people spend far too much time worrying about Thomas Jefferson's Democratic party--

it's more like, will the Republican Party even be around in the next decade.LOL

will north korea even be around in a few months as it exists today? remember...

 

donald trump is no barack obama. :P


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#25 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,140 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:00 PM

I agree that filing a case is NOT a waste of money IF it has some chance of success (say > 20%), and I'm not a Constitutional law expect by any means (as you can tell, ha ha).

I would really like to hear what Obama thinks of this. While I'm sure he disagreed with the actual pardon (as I do), as a former President, he might agree that a President has the power, as defined by the Constitution, to grant such a 'stinking' pardon.

I highly respect Obama in the area of Constitutional law and if he said he believed such a pardon exceeded the authority of the office than I would support having this case go to the Supreme Count. (but note I do NOT mention Trump because this type of legal case has nothing to do with the sitting President but instead the overall power of the Presidency).



When Thurgood Marshall starting working on the Brown versus Board case to desegregate American public schools. I bet most of the people in the US probably thought this is a waste of time and money. LOL

But even the Dred Scott case was not a waste of time and money.

Which reminds me of something that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr once said:

" The time is always right to do the right thing. "
  • Arturo likes this

#26 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,140 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 06:51 PM

Again, the Dem party needs to learn how to win elections otherwise one has to acquiesce to the power of the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court as defined by the US Constitution.


Yes, indeed Trump needs to learn that last part about the Congress, the Supreme Court and all the federal judiciary.

But I just would remind everybody in the United States that the American government gets its power from the people - - and this President did not even win the popular vote, even if he is legally the president.

In a democracy, the power always resides with the people.

I think some people spend far too much time worrying about Thomas Jefferson's Democratic party--

it's more like, will the Republican Party even be around in the next decade.LOL
  • Arturo likes this

#27 Arturo

Arturo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 06:36 PM

Again, the Dem party needs to learn how to win elections otherwise one has to acquiesce to the power of the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court as defined by the US Constitution.


The one who needs to acquiesce to the power of the Congress and Supreme Court is the President. In his comments and actions he has shown that he feels he is not a co-equal branch of government with them, as outlined by the Constitution. This lawsuit is not at all frivolous, and has nothing to do with the Dems' loss, but goes to the core of the Constitutional separation of powers, and the abuse of said separation of powers by the executive branch.
  • film lover 293 and Princess of Tap like this

#28 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,228 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:34 PM

In the meantime acquiesce to the reign of terror.

 

Again,  the Dem party needs to learn how to win elections otherwise one has to acquiesce to the power of the President, Congress,  and the Supreme Court as defined by the US Constitution.



#29 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,228 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:32 PM

I'm sure "these folks" can do more than one thing at a time. There are enough people in and around Washington to help prepare for upcoming elections and present a legal case.

 

And if the case results in a precedent setting limitation on the presidential pardon process, then it won't have been a waste of time or money, in my opinion.

 

I agree that filing a case is NOT a waste of money IF it has some chance of success (say > 20%), and I'm not a Constitutional  law expect by any means (as you can tell, ha ha). 

 

I would really like to hear what Obama thinks of this.    While I'm sure he disagreed with the actual pardon (as I do),  as a former President, he might agree that a President has the power,  as defined by the Constitution,  to grant such a 'stinking' pardon. 

 

I highly respect Obama in the area of Constitutional law and if he said he believed such a pardon exceeded the authority of the office than I would support having this case go to the Supreme Count.    (but note I do NOT mention Trump because this type of legal case has nothing to do with the sitting President but instead the overall power of the Presidency).



#30 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Lone Wolf

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,585 posts
  • LocationThe Octagon

Posted 30 August 2017 - 01:15 PM

Sorry but this is a silly waste of taxpayer funds.    Arpaio will be 6 feet under before this is ever decided.   So I view this only as a political stunt by people with NO power to show to their supporters that they do have power (when again they have NO power).

 

My advise to these folks would be: LEARN HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS!!!

 

I'm sure "these folks" can do more than one thing at a time. There are enough people in and around Washington to help prepare for upcoming elections and present a legal case.

 

And if the case results in a precedent setting limitation on the presidential pardon process, then it won't have been a waste of time or money, in my opinion.


  • mr6666, Arturo, TheCid and 2 others like this

#31 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,996 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 30 August 2017 - 01:08 PM

Sorry but this is a silly waste of taxpayer funds.    Arpaio will be 6 feet under before this is ever decided.   So I view this only as a political stunt by people with NO power to show to their supporters that they do have power (when again they have NO power).

 

My advise to these folks would be: LEARN HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS!!!

In the meantime acquiesce to the reign of terror.


  • Arturo likes this

#32 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,228 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 30 August 2017 - 12:49 PM

 

From the WP ...

https://www.washingt...=nl_most&wpmm=1

 

Right Turn

 Opinion 
Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins
 
 
By Jennifer Rubin August 30 at 9:35 AM
Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

Those challenging the pardon understand there is no precedent for this — but neither is there a precedent for a pardon of this type.

 

 

Sorry but this is a silly waste of taxpayer funds.    Arpaio will be 6 feet under before this is ever decided.   So I view this only as a political stunt by people with NO power to show to their supporters that they do have power (when again they have NO power).

 

My advise to these folks would be: LEARN HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS!!!



#33 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,996 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 30 August 2017 - 12:36 PM

From the WP ...

https://www.washingt...=nl_most&wpmm=1

 

Right Turn

 Opinion 
Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins
 
 
By Jennifer Rubin August 30 at 9:35 AM
Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

Those challenging the pardon understand there is no precedent for this — but neither is there a precedent for a pardon of this type.


  • mr6666, Arturo, TheCid and 1 other like this

#34 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,366 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 29 August 2017 - 03:15 PM

I'll bet maxine plays well in des moines.  :lol:

Probably about 90% of people in Des Moines

don't even recognize the name.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#35 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,366 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 29 August 2017 - 03:12 PM

Wow, you still don't get it.   Waters is used by Fox as just an EXAMPLE of a type of Dem.    In most areas of the country (e.g. non-coastal),  that type of Dem,  doesn't play well and this is how Fox helps push the GOP agenda.

I think I get it. It's a symbiotic relationship. Waters enjoys going on

TV and Fox likes to spotlight her as a far left Dem who says outrageous

things on occasion. My point is that Waters has about zero impact on how

people vote, especially Fox News viewers. 


  • Hibi, Arturo and Princess of Tap like this

Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#36 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,707 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 29 August 2017 - 10:12 AM

Wow, you still don't get it.   Waters is used by Fox as just an EXAMPLE of a type of Dem.    In most areas of the country (e.g. non-coastal),  that type of Dem,  doesn't play well and this is how Fox helps push the GOP agenda.

I'll bet maxine plays well in des moines.  :lol:


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#37 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,228 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 August 2017 - 08:09 AM

Liberal is a bit different, as for a long time it wasn't a term of derision, but

the GOP gradually made it one, especially when it was preceded by the words

tax and spend. I think the use of progressive was partly to find a new word

that didn't have the bad rap of the word liberal. I think Trump would have the

same level of support whether Waters is on the tube or not. She's pretty much

a non factor.

 

Wow, you still don't get it.   Waters is used by Fox as just an EXAMPLE of a type of Dem.    In most areas of the country (e.g. non-coastal),  that type of Dem,  doesn't play well and this is how Fox helps push the GOP agenda.


  • NipkowDisc likes this

#38 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,366 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:20 PM

--Plus a Democrat with a black face. LOL

And one who isn't intimidated. And is pretty

up front for a politician. 


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#39 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,366 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:19 PM

 Conservatives have come up with their own denigrating term for those that lean left; it is the term LIBERAL and the media has mostly bought into this as well.    Note that polling data supports this since the data shows that while there are more members of the Dem party than GOP party more people wish to define themselves as conservative than liberal.  That means that there are Dems that do NOT wish to label themselves as liberal because liberal has the sigma of being 'far left'.     (and progressive is even more radical as far as the mainstream media is concerned).

 

As for Waters and what Fox is doing;  Fox has people like Waters on to show that Trump isn't so out-there as the so called mainstream media (really mostly just CNN),  is implying.   It isn't to get GOP viewers to vote for Dems (DUH!)  but instead to get GOP viewers to continue to support Trump as the lesser of the evils between conservatives and liberals.

Liberal is a bit different, as for a long time it wasn't a term of derision, but

the GOP gradually made it one, especially when it was preceded by the words

tax and spend. I think the use of progressive was partly to find a new word

that didn't have the bad rap of the word liberal. I think Trump would have the

same level of support whether Waters is on the tube or not. She's pretty much

a non factor.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#40 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,140 posts

Posted 28 August 2017 - 05:47 PM

I say let the conservatives come up with their own denigrating term.
Sure, Fox has her on in an attempt to damage Democrats, but I doubt
it does much harm. How many Fox viewers would vote Democratic anyway?


--Plus a Democrat with a black face. LOL




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users