Into the Night
Verified User
Assumption of victory fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame YOUR problems on anybody else, Black.
Lets start small, evidence?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
No, it really is not. In parliamentary systems, the prime minister is elected by parliament, and can be removed by parliament at any time. No crime is needed, and it does not need a trial. 50%+1 can remove the prime minister.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Walt, thank you. You just described an impeachment.
The PResident can be removed by Congress at any time, with no actual crime being necessary (the Democrats established this to be the case with Trump) with 50%+1 vote in the Senate.
To remove the President requires two thirds of the Senate votes, not 50%+1. It is supposed to be done in the case of a crime, or severe transgression.
To remove a prime minister requires no votes of the House of Lords, or any other chamber. It only requires 50%+1 of the parliament. It is done whenever a coalition dissolves, or control of the parliament is changed. The prime minister is more like our Speaker of the House.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yes, I misspoke. The percentage required differs, i.e. two-thirds of the members present. Nonetheless, impeachment mirrors "no confidence."
Nope. The House can impeach for no reason at all. The House has sole power of impeachment and doesn't have to justify any impeachment action. Democrats showed this by impeaching Donald Trump for no reason at all.
When an impeachment is not based on a crime, it kind of makes it difficult for the Senate to justify a conviction. Nonetheless, the Senate does not have to justify any conviction. All that is required is two-thirds vote of the members present.
Great. I consider that a superficial difference. It's the same overarching process to the same end.