Should there be a feasible and less severe congressional option rather than impeachment and dismissal?
Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.
Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.
Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.
In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. The House did not consider censure, because the Senate could and likely would have ignored a censure bill.
If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.
If each chamber’s passed on bills could require the receiving chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?
Respectfully, Supposn
Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.
Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.
Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.
In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. The House did not consider censure, because the Senate could and likely would have ignored a censure bill.
If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.
If each chamber’s passed on bills could require the receiving chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?
Respectfully, Supposn