Image of the day

Captured by
RICHARD COFER

Lunar Occultation of Jupiter (Egress)

About Astromart

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

February 23, 2021 02:21 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by Steven Moore

Richard that is a Northern Flicker and they are part of the Woodpecker family. I think I am done posting on this site, it is a never ending with the left saying stuff bad things  about Cruz going to Cancun etc. etc.  You would swear that Trump won but instead we have to put up with Biden!!

Stick around Steven.....the "I told ya so" opportunities regarding Biden are going to be epic smile

February 23, 2021 06:01 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by James Brown

Weird - this is not a thing where "opinions" matter.  There is a definition that is consistent with the Constitution and that is accepted by every constitutional scholar, up to and including Richard Davis.  He has posted detailing the constitutional two-step of impeachment by the House and any subsequent trial/removal by the Senate more than once.

Impeachment = charged by the House with a high crime or misdemeanor.  One who has been charged by the House with a high crime or misdemeanor has been impeached.  That is the end of the definition.  

This whole thread is like someone hypothetically arguing, that in their opinion, the objective of a Newtonian reflector telescope is a lens.  I suppose that could be their opinion, but as you know, it would be absolutely wrong.

No worries, I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer.

Jim

That doesnt read like anyones's definition but your own Jim.....You particularly should understand that one is innocent until proven guilty. If the Senate votes not to uphold the charges then they are not guilty. Unless of course you are one of those who believe someone is guilty simply by the fact they are charged. You like the thought of impeachment being solely a political tool? You like the thought of it becoming commonplace in order to used as only a political tool? 

February 23, 2021 06:55 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
The only thing the house votes on is whether to begin/commence impeachment proceedings or not. Only until after they vote to commence impeachment proceedings are the articles of impeachment formalized. The actual proceedings happen in the senate after the charges are formalized and that doesnt happen until after the house votes to commence the proceedings. Therefor unless the senate convicts on the charges made no impeachment occurred, only an impeachment proceeding was initiated. Seems pretty simple.....

But of course partisans want to claim otherwise whichever side they are on.....only after those charges are validated by the senate is someone actually impeached and of course suffers ANY consequences. 

February 23, 2021 08:45 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

An impeachment is DECIDED by the house. When it is approved by the house an impeachment has occurred. That's the law and the constitution. Nobody on the forum seems to understand why you don't understand.  My suspicion is it's based upon misinformation from MAGA media...

No Rod....its based on a description of what each part of Congress's job is regarding impeachment. I laid it out in the message you responded to....

I will say it one more time and simpler for you: The house votes on ONE thing. Whether or not to start impeachment proceedings. That is ALL they vote on, that is all they are empowered to do. Those proceedings are not complete until the senate votes. It really is that simple. If the senate upholds the impeachment then they are impeached and the consequences ensue....ie removal from office and denied from running again. Actual impeachment has consequences. Just starting an impeachment process has NO consequences without senate confirmation. 

I am just amazed that the concept is so hard to grasp......Sure it sounds good to the opposing parties to say they were impeached simply because the process was implemented. In truth as I have said Clinton nor Trump were impeached, they were only charged and acquitted.

February 23, 2021 08:49 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

An impeachment is DECIDED by the house. When it is approved by the house an impeachment has occurred. That's the law and the constitution. Nobody on the forum seems to understand why you don't understand.  My suspicion is it's based upon misinformation from MAGA media...

In fact using your words the Senate has no place in it......if that were true there would be no senate trial and Both Clinton and Trump (last year) would have been removed from office. In the real world that isnt the case LOL

February 23, 2021 10:13 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Facts matter.....regardless of what the Constitution says, the process is as I laid out.....the house can only vote to start the impeachment process and only the senate can complete it.....Theory and practice are two different things...lol

February 23, 2021 03:28 PM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by James Brown


Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. 

Correct.....They are the only ones who can start impeachment proceedings. That is their sole power in impeachment. They however cannot do anything but vote to begin the process or not. There is no conviction involved without the senate.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Correct again....No one is impeached/convicted without a confirmation/conviction from a senate trial.....

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Once again correct....That doesnt happen without the senate ruling against them.....It is right there in plain english. I have to admit it is fascinating to watch you guys argue otherwise even when you tell me I am 100% correct in my description of the process lol

February 23, 2021 03:33 PM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Lol! Your "facts matter" only applies to you! "Regardless of what he constitution says" is the icing on the cake! Lol!!!

LOL you are the one that said "An impeachment is DECIDED by the house." 

No it is not....The only decision involved in the house is whether to begin an eviction process by submitting it to the senate for a DECISION......

February 24, 2021 03:26 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The house decides to impeach a president and if they vote to do so, a president is, in fact, impeached. Why can't you get that through your head?

Simple....I know simple things evade you. He was not removed from office so he was not impeached. LOL

It really doesnt get any simpler 

February 24, 2021 06:46 AM Forum: Politics

Bruce Castor’s meanderings at the start of the impeachment trial

Posted By Greg Shaffer
Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Brian:

Greg's laughably incorrect definition is shared by lots of ignorant people.  Greg is not ignorant, so I am starting to think that he is just being irascible for the sake of irascibility. 

Congrats Jim...... The only one intelligent enough to figure it out smile

I was hoping someone would actually be convinced though.....lol

Funding Member

Sponsors


View all sponsors

Search