You're a fcking moron who wants to live in a cage. I hope you get your wish. Just don't drag me into a cage with you.
Last edited:
Change The Constitution. Make Impeachment Votes Secret Ballot.
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
You're a fcking moron who wants to live in a cage. I hope you get your wish. Just don't drag me into a cage with you.
Is that what you think it is about?
I don't care how the Senators vote, but a secret ballot would change few or no votes.
It is a bad idea because our representatives should be accountable to us. If you feel strongly a president should be removed and he is not, you should be able to vote against your Rep or Senator. If your Senator was too cowardly to vote for "justice," you should vote him out. Andrew Johnson was not convicted by one vote and it destroyed the Republican Senator's career because he chose to do the right thing.
Impartial justice is great idea, but if you don't think both sides were being extremely partisan you are not being impartial.
It is about changing the rules until you get the desired outcome.
cawacko
Well-known member
Exactly.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Take your geritol.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Then a secret ballot is what should be done, in order to ensure the oath of doing impartial justice.
On matters of policy, yes. On the matter of doing impartial justice, public votes are inconsistent with the oath and the very goal and concept of doing impartial justice. In this case, they need to be accountable to justice.
That right would not be removed by secret balloting on impeachment votes. People are still free to vote as they please whether or not they know how their Senator voted on impeachment. If the decision were intended to be left up to voters, there would be no impeachment, only elections.
Nice little word circle, but impartial justice cannot be done when every juror is considering matters unrelated to the case instead of deciding the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial.
Then a secret ballot is what should be done, in order to ensure the oath of doing impartial justice.
On matters of policy, yes. On the matter of doing impartial justice, public votes are inconsistent with the oath and the very goal and concept of doing impartial justice. In this case, they need to be accountable to justice.
That right would not be removed by secret balloting on impeachment votes. People are still free to vote as they please whether or not they know how their Senator voted on impeachment. If the decision were intended to be left up to voters, there would be no impeachment, only elections.
Nice little word circle, but impartial justice cannot be done when every juror is considering matters unrelated to the case instead of deciding the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
BS.
I would support this even after Trump is gone. The Trump impeachment case is only the thing which brought this deficiency of the Constitution to light.
It is a philosophical matter now. The Trump case need not be considered to decide if impeachment ballots should be secret.
Consider it in the academic sense. How can impartial justice be done when the jurors are worried about the implications of their public votes and the bearing on their own futures?
BS.
I would support this even after Trump is gone. The Trump impeachment case is only the thing which brought this deficiency of the Constitution to light.
It is a philosophical matter now. The Trump case need not be considered to decide if impeachment ballots should be secret.
Consider it in the academic sense. How can impartial justice be done when the jurors are worried about the implications of their public votes and the bearing on their own futures?
Mason Michaels
Verified User
Andrew Johnson was never a Republican,he was a member of the War Democrats
cawacko
Well-known member
From an academic sense can’t you say that about every vote they make?
evince
Truthmatters
how about we stop the republican party from doing the cheating they do to steal elections
then the sycophants cant get in office to protect their leaders crimes
Its like thinking your child needs tutoring when in fact he would do better in school if you just stop letting his uncle beat him
then the sycophants cant get in office to protect their leaders crimes
Its like thinking your child needs tutoring when in fact he would do better in school if you just stop letting his uncle beat him
How about you accept the ass whipping you took in 2016 and stop making excuses as to why you lost
We saw where Romney stood. With his tail tucked between his legs still mad that Trump beat the person deemed the most qualified to ever run for the office knowing he couldn't beat the incompetent, unqualified black BOY that made the claim.
I'm not necessarily against your desired change, but I really doubt that the outcome of the Senate vote would have been different. You probably would end up with more Republican defectors, but then again, there would likely be some Democratic ones as well.
Also, as far as I understand it, this would not require a Constitutional Amendment. I don't recall the Constitution specifying that the vote can't be blind or "secret."
Pretty much. Congress has a lot of latitude in deciding how things work procedurally. If they really wanted the vote to be secret, all they had to do was vote on changing procedure.
He was referring to the Senator who cast the deciding vote.
Impeaching and convicting a president is an important decision. So our Senators and Representatives should be accountable to us on that issue and not just policy issues.
Not a single Democrat voted to convict Clinton and he admitted he lied. That was certainly partisan. Were they administering impartial justice when they voted against impeaching the president for perjury he admitted?
Or, did the Democrats just think that was not an important enough crime to remove him from office? If so, that was just a political judgment. I don't think impartial justice came into play for Johnson, Clinton, or Trump.
I didn't say Johnson was a Republican. I was referring to the Republican Senator (Ross) that was considered the decisive vote against conviction.
But Johnson was nominated and elected as the VP nominee of the Republican Party (National Union).