quote:

Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
Lefty Sig we don't need Debby Downers. Keep it positive. The boss has said that repeatedly. Trump is still championing for us despite everything against him and us.

Not intending to be a downer, just speaking the truth. My point is that Trump's media silence and the continued unhinged vindictive insanity of the MSM and democrats may very well expose them for the anti-Constitution anti-Americans traitors they are. And that might get enough votes on our side to win decisively in 2024. You can steal 5 machine democrat districts in 5 major cities in 5 swing states in a close race, but you can't steal a Reagan-esque landslide.

Now that Biden is going hard left, killing jobs, letting cross-dressing men beat women in women's sports, instituting critical race theory as the new history, giving citizenship to illegals, demonizing the police as racist, demonizing the national guard, and every other thing he's going to do, all of the "I'm conservative but I don't like Trump's personality and Joe is really a moderate so I'll vote for him" are going to be shocked at what they have allowed to happen to this country.

And that means all conservatives in red states need to lobby hard for voting reforms - voter ID, signature checks, absentee ballots only with cause, no ballot harvesting, etc. We will always lose CA and NY, but we should never have lost Georgia.

Rand Paul Moves to Stop the Sham Impeachment Trial as Unconstitutional. Video at link.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/392339.php

quote:

Originally posted by synthrob:
Rand Paul Moves to Stop the Sham Impeachment Trial as Unconstitutional. Video at link.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/392339.php

Useless with dems and RINOs in place. But what I don't get is that if this is unconstitutional, which it clearly seems to be, why SCOTUS isn't shutting it down. Is there a way to make SCOTUS rule on it?

SCOTUS has no balls and no clue they are a co-equal branch of the government.

The appear to be fat, dumb and happy pretending the country isn’t sinking.

Don’t count on them for help of any sort. If they get a ruling right it’s probably just dumb luck.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
SCOTUS has no balls and no clue they are a co-equal branch of the government.

The appear to be fat, dumb and happy pretending the country isn’t sinking.

Don’t count on them for help of any sort. If they get a ruling right it’s probably just dumb luck.

It's worse than that - the SCOTUS is compromised and scared.

quote:

Originally posted by frayedends:

quote:

Originally posted by synthrob:
Rand Paul Moves to Stop the Sham Impeachment Trial as Unconstitutional. Video at link.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/392339.php

Useless with dems and RINOs in place. But what I don't get is that if this is unconstitutional, which it clearly seems to be, why SCOTUS isn't shutting it down. Is there a way to make SCOTUS rule on it?

Apparently not, but Roberts refused to preside over the trial, which is basically equivalent to him signalling the trial is unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by synthrob:
... Roberts refused to preside over the trial, which is basically equivalent to him signalling the trial is unconstitutional.

Could've knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

That would be a signal to thinking people, which tells you all you need to know about today's Democrat Party.

Impeachment trials of the President are presided over by the Chief Justice. No Chief justice, no impeachment trial. There is no Constitutional provision for a Senator on the majority side to preside. They are making this up as they go, and as such they are not upholding their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
This whole impeachment thing is a waste of time and taxpayers money.

I agree. Some of my peeps get uptight at me when I say this, because "he needs to be held accountable!" But the reality for We the People is that our politicians are wasting our time and money, largely because they can't let go of a grudge.

I remember as a kid, Dad saying "just think what you could do if you put your mind to it." Similarly, just thing what our politicians could do if they'd put their efforts in the right place, remembering that they work for We the People and not for their own selfish interests, grudges, and lobbyists.

Term.
Limits.
Now.

Every sitting democrat and most republicans have now reached their term limit.

They won’t vote for it. They are going to have to be forcibly removed. They’ve been there so long they think they own the place.

Perhaps the riot on the capital was a good thing. Shows them that they are vulnerable and that we the people still matter.

Indeed...the demonrats are so far away from the constitution I wouldnt be surprised if they just changeds the rules so that simple majority is required to "convict" in this charade..."

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Impeachment trials of the President are presided over by the Chief Justice. No Chief justice, no impeachment trial. There is no Constitutional provision for a Senator on the majority side to preside. They are making this up as they go, and as such they are not upholding their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Every sitting democrat and most republicans have now reached their term limit.

They won’t vote for it. They are going to have to be forcibly removed. They’ve been there so long they think they own the place.

Perhaps the riot on the capital was a good thing. Shows them that they are vulnerable and that we the people still matter.

I’ve been saying this since the day it happened. The fact that they came after these people as hard as they did just shows it to be true. They got a small reality check abs they didn’t like it

There’s a resurgence of the call for a convention of the states - a procedure stated in the Constitution for amending the Constitution.

Having seen a failure in fair elections and the belief that stollen elections will now be perpetual, people seeking to redress our non-constitutional condition in a legal manner will turn to a convention of the states.

Yes, there are those who want, like the Congregationalist Puritans, to reform the system from within. But, the steps away from the constitutional order have long roots - roots that can only be reached by a deeper review of the state of our union. For those coming to that conclusion, the convention of the states offers a legal means to address what has so deeply driven a wedge between the constitutional order that left power at the state and local level and an order that seeks to federalize everything.

A convention of the states can address patriotic pubic education, errant court decisions, term limits, state and local power, taxes, the administrative state, states’ rights, and the future of the union - scary stuff. It is not clear what would result.

But, in the grand scheme of things, it is who we are to not let fear decide our collective course of action. They asked Benjamin Franklin when he stepped from the Constitutional Convention whether we had a monarch or something else. He replied that we had a republic if we can keep it. It was often said that the 56th chair at the Constitutional Convention was occupied by fear. Fear did not stop them from taking bold action to address the inappropriate governance of their day.

Today, we have a legal and scary method available to, within the system, fix what has gone so awry. It will be interesting to see if the idea of a convention gains steam in light of what looks like a system that has to be installed by razor wire and troops. It is hard to see how that is what we set out to become.

For all the pending suits out there, what is the remedy? Nothing that doesn’t lead to violence. What is the remedy sought by those seeking to take over government buildings? Yes. Violence and then maybe a change of actors in the same overly centralized system. What is the remedy for those wanting fair elections for the future? Nothing because the left will only persecute and seek to consolidate their stollen power - if their course holds.

I only mention this issue because I’m not convinced that even our beloved President Trump can get the change we need through election reform and replacing representatives. The people may need to be looking past those reforms alone.

Just a thought . . .

(That was “public” education. Maybe Schumer is contagious.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tubetone,

I agree with Tubetone that a convention may be the way to go. I would add one thing. Several years a go Mark Levin was suggesting this with the goal of abolishing the 17th amendment. I think the time has come to really push for this. Before this amendment, the state houses picked who our Senators would be. It was changed because people thought it would put more power into the hands of the people but it has had the opposite effect.

I live in Michigan, both the state house and senate are republican, but both our senators are dems., why is this? One reason is K-street. The lobbyist poor a ton of money into my state to elect these senators. If they were picked by the state house that money wouldn't have nearly the influence. And in my case they would both be reps.

Once my senators get elected they don't give a damn about the people here. If I call them to complain they don't care. If they were selected by the state houses I could call my local reps. And if enough people did this they could be removed.

This would negate the need for term limits, at last in the senate, if they are doing what the people want great, keep them, if not get them out. And not with a six year term, no terms, serve at the will of the people.

I'm sure that there were several valid reasons for the 17th when it was written. I don't think they envisioned the mess it has caused with people being in the senate forever.

Jim

quote:

A convention of the states can address patriotic pubic education, errant court decisions, term limits, state and local power, taxes, the administrative state, states’ rights, and the future of the union - scary stuff. It is not clear what would result.

Not fear as hinted, but rather evidence au courant, gives ample warning that any such process would be as strongly polluted by trickery as the recent election.

Hastening to willingly expose what will surely be an unequal process with illegitimate accounting is unacceptable to many.

The pretense compromise will generate a New Order somehow more legitimate and workable than the Old New Order, is either naive or supreme treachery.

Does anyone else here think Roberts is running afoul of the Const. by refusing to preside over the trial? Seems to me, if Roberts or the whole SCOTUS want to rule the impeachment of a private citizen to be an unconstitutional sham, they'd need to wait until a case is filed and the Court agrees to hear it.

What if some Dem senators were able to bring a case to the SCOTUS that eventually rules Roberts must preside over the trial? I mean the Const. doesn't qualify the procedure with words like "at his discretion" or "if he feels like it."

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Impeachment trials of the President are presided over by the Chief Justice. No Chief justice, no impeachment trial. There is no Constitutional provision for a Senator on the majority side to preside. They are making this up as they go, and as such they are not upholding their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.

the progs do not care nor do they believe in the Constitution....this is the main difference between a "liberal" and a prog.

The progs know they don't have the votes, this is political theater ....bread and circuses to their base.

Any republican who supports this unconstitutional scam needs recalled or primaried.

Rather surprised turtle grew a pair, maybe the people of Kentucky reminded him where his loyalties should lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Does anyone else here think Roberts is running afoul of the Const. by refusing to preside over the trial? Seems to me, if Roberts or the whole SCOTUS want to rule the impeachment of a private citizen to be an unconstitutional sham, they'd need to wait until a case is filed and the Court agrees to hear it.

No. In fact he's doing the absolute correct thing by declining to participate. The Constitution clearly states such a trial is to determine whether or not to remove a SITTING President. The pending "trial" does NOT conform to the Constitution and therefore Roberts is under no obligation to involve himself in such. Further by staying silent and uninvolved he does not jeopardize his vote should this fiasco end up before SCOTUS. No recusal necessary or warranted.

The notion that he should or must preside is simply a DEM / MSM / DNC talking point, which, like most of their utterances, is pure unadulterated garbage.

I hope you're right, but I don't trust Roberts one iota. Whenever he does the right thing, it's not because it's the right thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I hope you're right, but I don't trust Roberts one iota. Whenever he does the right thing, it's not because it's the right thing to do.

Yeah he's a snake. But here, this situation is so clear, that for him to do otherwise would send up flags all over the place.