Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution
The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive authority to bring impeachment charges against any federal judges or officials in the executive branch of government.
This provision is designed to give the people’s representatives the RIGHT to bring charges against the judicial or administrative officers of the federal government where there is evidence of misfeasance or malfeasance.
This judicial power to bring a indictment or impeachment charge against federal officials is a carryover from the powers of Parliament. In the beginning the Parliament could do little more than pass laws, which were promptly ignored or subverted by the king’s officers. The next step was to refuse to raise taxes or appropriate funds for the king unless he would give the House of Commons the right to bring impeachment charges against derelict officials and have them tried before the House of Lords. If found guilty, the miscreant could be discharged from his office and the king could not pardon him. Furthermore, after dismissal the discharged official could be charged in a criminal or civil court for his violations by those whom he had injured. All of the elements of these impeachment proceedings developed by Parliament were incorporated in the constitutional powers of the United States Congress.
Historically, the threat of impeachment has not been as effective as the Founders had hoped, mainly because it has seldom been used.
One judge was impeached and removed for drunkenness, another for disloyalty during the Civil War, and a third for conduct unbecoming a judge. A member of President Grant’s cabinet was impeached by the House, but since he resigned the Senate did not convict him. President Andrew Johnson was impeached, and he missed conviction by the Senate by only one vote. History has been on the side of President Johnson. The Tenure of Office Act, which required the President to have the approval of the Senate before he discharged a government official, was repealed in 1887.
The impeachment of President William J. Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate voted not to convict by a vote of 55-45. A vote of 67 was required to convict.
President Nixon is the only President who has resigned under threat of impeachment.
When charges are preferred against an official, the matter is referred to the House Judiciary Committee or to a special House investigating Committee. A report is submitted to the House, which then votes on whether or not to impeach. Articles of impeachment are prepared for presentation at the trial, which is conducted before the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution
No members of the judiciary or the executive branch of government shall be convicted of impeachment charges unless there is a concurrence by two-thirds of the members in attendance.
This provision gives the accused the RIGHT to be substantially protected from merely partisan prejudices so that he will not stand convicted unless the decision is rendered by a substantial majority of those in attendance. The attendance must be at least a quorum (half of Senate members plus one) in order to hold the hearing There is a possibly of partisan imbalance in case the hearing is not well attended. However, impeachment proceedings are so rare that a substantial attendance is usually assured.
Nevertheless, numbers are important. For example there are presently 100 members of the Senate. This means it would require 51 of them to constitute a quorum and hold an impeachment hearing. Two-thirds of this number would be 34, and theoretically this number could impeach the president or any other judicial or executive officer. If all 100 senators were present it would take 67 to convict, which is nearly twice as many.
Source: The Making of America
“If our country is to survive and prosper, we must summon the courage to condemn and reject the liberal agenda, and we had better do it soon. “
AN OPINION FROM THE DEPLORABLE INFIDEL
A good example of impeachment seldom being used is William Orrick, a federal judge of the Northern District of California. He is responsible for blocking President Trump’s order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. He is also the same judge that issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby parts.
It was reported that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for the Barack Obama presidential Campaign and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting Obama. Congress never investigated these allegations or called for an impeachment.
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical Canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities. The Canon that applies to political activity states:
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity
General Prohibitions. A judge should not: Act as leader or hold any office in a political organization; make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
The moron American hating Democrats would not investigate nor impeach this low life excuse for a judge, but want to impeach President Trump for making a phone call.
A SIMPLE TRUTH FOR TODAY
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
“This is mean. I wish the dog would chew off his little Japanese feet and let him see how it feels to walk on his knees!”
Eye Candy from God
Low clouds over a volcano.
A dandelion covered with dew – unimaginable.
The Editor: Should we just have a California Day for The Sphinx, LL ? What is new In La La Land ?
Equine Cat: It might take more than a day. They treat horses worse than American citizens.
Here is a race that Kamala, Nancy, Maxine, and Dianne Feinstein should enter.
I’m surprised that there is any grass in Califorelstinko left for snakes to hide.
If Californians want to have their homes burned and do without electricity and smart phones that is their business. I doubt if new homes can get insurance.
The future is here, vote Democratic.
Explanation: Why are these galaxies spinning so fast? If you estimated each spiral‘s mass by how much light it emits, their fast rotations should break them apart. The leading hypothesis as to why these galaxies don’t break apart is dark matter — mass so dark we can’t see it. But these galaxies are even out-spinning this break-up limit — they are the fastest rotating disk galaxies known. It is therefore further hypothesized that their dark matter halos are so massive — and their spins so fast — that it is harder for them to form stars than regular spirals. If so, then these galaxies may be among the most massive spirals possible. Further study of surprising super-spirals like these will continue, likely including observations taken by NASA‘s James Webb Space Telescope scheduled for launch in 2021.
Tomorrow’s picture: open space