Can the Courts put a stop to repeated impeachments ? ...

[dogtag]

I have no doubt the hate-filled democrats will carry out their
threat of - If one impeachment doesn't work, try another, and
if that doesn't work try yet another.

https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/democrats-say-theyll-impeach-trump-all-over-again-even-if-hes-re-elected/

Just wondering.

[JohnMOhio]

I doubt that anything like this could be stopped by the court. However, "We the People" have the power and that is with the vote to change control of the House. It is that simple.

[Vern Humphrey]

I have no doubt the hate-filled democrats will carry out their
threat of - If one impeachment doesn't work, try another, and
if that doesn't work try yet another.

https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/democrats-say-theyll-impeach-trump-all-over-again-even-if-hes-re-elected/

Just wondering.

US Constitution. 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.

The courts have no say at all regarding impeachment. Remember, impeachment is a political, not a legal matter.

[dogtag]

US Constitution. 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.

The courts have no say at all regarding impeachment. Remember, impeachment is a political, not a legal matter.

Repeated attempts would turn impeachment into abusive harassment of the Executive Branch. What then ?

[Vern Humphrey]

Repeated attempts would turn impeachment into abusive harassment of the Executive Branch. What then ?

Nothing. The House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment.

The voters can (assuming honest elections) vote the buggers out, but that's it.

[Art]

In the first 180 years, more or less, after the Constitution was ratified there was one impeachment. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violation of "The Tenure in Office" act. In a nutshell the Congress after the Civil War had a majority that wanted to punish the states of the old Confederacy. A lot of the people in Johnson's cabinet were in line with the Congress on that. Johnson had a more conciliatory view and fired some of the "Radical Republicans" in the cabinet he inherited from Lincoln. Congress passed a law, The Tenure in Office Act (obviously no longer in effect) that made it illegal for the President to fire a cabinet member approved by the Senate without Congressional approval. Johnson vetoed the law. The veto was overridden, Johnson ignored the law, was impeached and acquitted in the Senate by one vote. We were spared this sort of thing for another 100 years until Dick Nixon resigned realizing he would be impeached and probably convicted in a Senate trial.

After close to 200 years with one impeachment we'll now have our third impeachment proceeding in less than 50 years and I fear the pace is going to be speeded up. Dogtag's fears about the abuse of the impeachment power are well founded and the only remedy for the abuse of the system is to vote the S.O.B.s out. That is what happened in a small way after the Clinton impeachment where the Republicans lost a few seats in the congressional elections after he was acquitted but kept their majority. Hopefully the Congressional Dems will pay a price for this circus in November but I have my doubts.

The people who founded this country actually did worry about abuse of the impeachment system but trusted the congress critters not to use it as a recall system. Unfortunately their trust was misplaced.

An example of a justifiable impeachment, IMHO, is the impeachment and conviction in the Senate by an almost unanimous vote of Alcee Hastings, then a Federal District Judge for participating in a scheme in which he was soliciting and accepting repeated and systematic payoffs from illegal drug rings. Now that's the appropriate remedy for an impeachable offense as actually defined in the Constitution. Fortunately Hastings is no longer a judge. Unfortunately he's now a long term sitting Congressman from Florida.

Since impeachment is supposed to be the only Constitutional remedy for Presidential misconduct in office the authorities have settled upon criminal prosecution after the President leaves office for offenses that don't rise to the level of treason or bribery. That is what, more or less, happened to Clinton. In return for assurances that he would not be prosecuted for crimes committed while he was President, the day before he (Clinton) left office he agreed to what amounted to a sort of plea bargain in which, he paid a $25,000.00 fine, surrendered his law license for five years, and paid a $90,000.00 settlement in the civil lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.

The Constitution of the United States is not a big document. In can be had in pamphlet form. I think it's a good practice to keep a copy around and handy.

[dogtag]

The Constitution of the United States is not a big document. In can be had in pamphlet form. I think it's a good practice to keep a copy around and handy.

I have 2 copies. Just wish I could read.

[RED]

Default Can the Courts put a stop to repeated impeachments ? ...

NO!!!! The precedent is set. In the future, every president that is in office when the opposition party holds a majority in the House, he will automatically be impeached. No evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors needed.

The trial in the Senate is meaningless... it takes months and the impeached president's powers are negated in the meantime.

[PWC]

It is a political process, but it still must follow the constitution, which provides the right to a defense and to confront an accuser, and question witnesses. If any of those are denied the process is not a constitutional; democratic / republican process, but an act of a monarchy, not of or by the people, but for the priveledged few. I'm not worried about a billionaire that becomes president, but by an elected official that becomes a millionaire after being elected.