Imgflip Logo Icon

constitution

constitution | WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT? "THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT."; THAT IS IT.  THE INQUIRIES ARE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. | image tagged in constitution | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
460 views 5 upvotes Made by LarryCaird 5 years ago in politics
constitution memeCaption this Meme
34 Comments
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Ancient Aliens Meme | ACCURATE | image tagged in memes,ancient aliens | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
now the outcome is a whole different animal.
I suspect it will fail...horribly.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
If the facts support voting Bills of Impeachment, that is what should happen. If not, we will have a clearer picture of what really happened. But, since the majority of those who will act as the jurors have already said they will not vote for conviction, your prediction seems likely to come to pass. But, when Nixon sat on a nearly 70% approval rate at the beginning of the Wateregate investigation, I thought the scandal would go nowhere. His approval rate was 24% when he resigned rather than being thrown out. You never know what people will do when they have to face cold, hard facts in public.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
THAT WAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POLITICAL CLIMATE AND OUR FOURTH ESTATE WAS NOT IN THE SHAMBLES IT IS TODAY | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I have never seen such a virulent case of cult of personality in my lifetime.
trump was not kidding when he stated "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue,and my supporters would still believe in me".

they will defend him to the last,and even engage in violence for their beloved leader.

there is always a certain amount of cult of personality and hero worship in regards to presidents,but never at this level.

my observation,of course.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Dr. Strangelove | WHY THANK YOU VERY ENLIGHTENING | image tagged in dr strangelove | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
guess I was wrong.
sychophantic radicals simply do not exist.
and there has been no one who has engaged in violence,fueled by the rhetoric of demagogues and charlatans.
and certainly none that have specifically mentioned trump.

thank you my friend,for setting me straight.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
which you flippantly dismissed,and now are pretending that YOU should be taken seriously.

again...arrogance.

you get what you give.
wanna be a lil shit?
I will be shitty.

YOU choose how we interact.
not me.
so shove your fake-ass pseudo-intellectual bullshit right up your ass.

you wanna have a human conversation?
then act like a human.

otherwise..it sounds like a YOU problem.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y,
2 replies
good morning!
/holds up coffee

1.observation is not argument.
it can be part of an argument,but that's not what I was doing.
not really sure why you even make this a point of contention,and I don't really care.
it is wrong,and kinda silly.

example: the sky is blue <------ observation.not an argument

2."no one" (ok,this is a nit pick,but do try to keep your identifying pronouns straight) it was YOU.so the proper should have been "i",not "no one".(I know I know.nitpicking).

3.now here is where your arrogance comes into it's full,and spectacular glory.
seriously,this is some impressive narcissism.

you triple down on your "challenge" claims,and say that you *cough* I mean "no one" flippantly dismissed anything.as if there isn't a record.there is your comment literally right above where we can read " I think you're seeing cult of personality that doesn't exist anywhere but in your own mind"

how completely bubble wrapped do you need to be to not see that as anything but flippant? but in YOUR mind,this is a challenge?
how? I am asking seriously,because that is in NO way a challenge,by any stretch of the imagination.

you could have asked my how I came to that conclusion,or my thought process,and we could have hashed it out.walked away with a better understanding.
but no..
you just called me delusional,wrote it up as a "challenge" (hint:it is not)

omg..i cant stop laughing...this is just so absurd.

wasn't it you that claimed that you "simply wish to raise the level of discourse"?
/looks at your comments.
lol..yeah dude...I don't think you understand what discourse actually entails.

4.offended and grow a thicker skin.

this only works if I was
a.offended
b.thin skinned and tender

of which I am neither.
I matched tone for tone.

your entire response simply re-affirmed my point.

and let me just end with some unsolicited advice.
you claim your goal is to not condemn,and to raise the level of discourse.
ok..that is worthy goal.
but your comments contradict your stated goals.

you could have asked why I thought the way I did.
instead you insulted me.
you could have apologized for your comment,and according to your own assumptions,i was offended.a civil discourse would have dictated at least an apology.
but you suggested growing a thicker skin.

conclusion:arrogant,presumptuous and lacking in principle.
and a fake ass wanna-be,psuedo-intellectual that can't even adhere to his own stated goals.
toodles lover <3
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y
not gonna even bother deconstructing the rest.
not because I disagree,because I do,but rather it serves no purpose.

you shared your opinion,and stated the reasons why.
that's really all anyone can ask.

not angry,nor frustrated with you mate.
I come here for entertainment.plain and simple.
(and to slap muppets and Nazis around).
but I have met plenty of great people as well,and I suspect you are a decent sort.
we will figure it out eventually.
I suspect we share a lot in common.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y
I can point to many examples.
but you never asked for that.

you simply dismissed it as nonsense.because YOU are a trump supporter,and therefore nobody could possibly be unhinged enough to buy the inflammatory rhetoric to engage in wholesale violence.

oh look!
the very thing you accuse me of being.so I guess the only people who are unhinged are those not part of your group/tribe?

*no need to respond here,i was being rhetorical and I already know your response.so let's skip the word salad circle jerk and leave it at that.
K?
k.

you can make claims all day about my mental health.my emotional state.my intentions.

but at the end of the day...
you don't know.
because you do not know me,and I believe you have no interest in knowing me and that your cries for "civil discourse" are dishonest,and your "challenges" are not challenges at all.
dude..you seriously do not challenge me.
deal with it.
get over it.
I don't really care what you do,but you simply don't.

but again....arrogant.
you are projecting.
attributing elements and biases that you,yourself,hold.
which has nothing to do with me.

it still remains a YOU problem.
and I feel I should be very upfront here.

I no longer believe you are sincere.
I believe you are bad faith actor who seeks to solely "own the libs" or something along those lines.

and I think your commentary illuminates it quite nicely.
/holds up mirror

look to thyself for the answers you seek,because you shall find no respite in these lands.

thank you...for your co-operation.
toodles.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
That doe'st mean they can do whatever they want in regards to the inquiry. Either following the set rules, or changing the already set rules, as opposed an ad hoc system would be a good example.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
I am afraid that they meant they CAN do whatever they want in regards to the inquiry. The founders thought that the Members of Congress would be sensitive to our needs and expectations, because they had to face reelection every two years. They thought this would make them most trustworthy, insofar as doing the right thing. That is why they trusted them with this solemn duty. And, they trusted them to coduct an impeachment in ways that were appropriate to the circumstances. So, thy set no proscribed system or a lot of rules in advance. It is, in fact an ad hoc system. They are allowed to adapt the process to the circumstances, if they see fit. But, they are following House rules. The Speaker is allowed to give assignments to committees. Nothing new there. Some people just don't like what this Speaker does, no matter what. Nothing new there.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Sorry, they cannot press witness to death until they confess. Ths CANNOT do anything they want and you have utterly failed to show otherwise. In this case the House has already make a set of rules to follow to undergo an inquiry. The house itself has not changed the rules, rather a few of the members have went ad hoc instead.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Exactly, which rules have they changed? Where are those rules found? If the Speaker of the House did not have the power, under the Constitution, existing laws and the rules and regulations of the House of Representatives to direct these committees to pursue these investigations, the Republicans would have refused to attend the meetings. They might sue, but the Federal Courts have ruled in the past that internal disagreements are not under their jurisdiction. Do any of you Kodak Republicans, ones who spit out exact copies of the inane comments they take in on radical talk radio, know what Ad Hoc means? It means As Necessary. Do you not want Congress to act as necessary? Do you know how foolish these "Rushisms," sound to people who know what they really mean? Kodak Republicans never produce anything original.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
They changed no rules. That's the point, no set rules are being used as per the meaning of ad hoc. Here is the actual rule set that is being ignored: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
The rules say that the Speaker of the House can give committees assignments. She did just that. If the rules did not so state, Republicans never would have gone along with this. And, "suspending the rules," happens every time a member wants to name a Post Office in their district for a local hero. The rules are suspended at the request of Republicans and Democrats alike. The only person empowered to suspend the rules is the Speaker, or acting speaker. If she had done that just to get at the president, we would still hear the echoes of the screaming by Republicans. All work in the house would have halted, while they employed every parliamentary trick available to derail it.You have bought into a "shiny object," tactic being employed to divert attention away from the issue being investigated. The question you should ask, and probably will never ask, is "if he is innocent why are they spending many millions of dollars and enrolling all of their resources to have you look at everything but the facts?"
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Nice text block and personal attacks to say I'm wrong without any refutation of my evidence or argument. The house has the authority of impeachment, but the house itself has not decided to impeach as no vote was held and no one there has the authority to set the constitution aside. I have posted the rules for the process and you completely ignored them.

And of course you end with defending yourself is evidence is guilt.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
No matter how you slice it, this is a legal investigation by sitting committees of Congress. If they find evidence to support allegations they are consideraing, they might determine that Bills of Impeachment are appropriate. If they fashion such bills, the committees will have to support them by majority vote and submit them to the House for consideration. If the Bills come to the floor, the members will debate their merit and vote them up or down. After that the Republicans are free to vote against them, merit be damned, to save their seats. Until then, there is a a legal Constitutionally supported process that will be followed.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
You you're just going to ignored that they are not actually following the set process.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
And, you are going to ignore the fact that the people in charge, through the Speaker of the House (not you, the president's apologists or anyone else) have the Constitutionally granted power to follow a process they set. It is perfectly reasonable, to use the bi-partisan committees already established, to determine if there is evidence that would support formal impeachment processes to be initiated. All that is happening now is prelimenary. If there is some process that should be followed every time, why aren't you criticising the Senate for not appointing a blue-ribbon, bi-lateral committee like the one established to investigate the Watergate break in?
0 ups, 5y
So your going to continue to ignore the rules om the impeachment inquiry proccess, what the Constitution actually says, and what a few members of the house are doing instead of the whole house. And nice ill informed whataboutism to top it off.
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
It's not about constitution, it's about principle.
3 ups, 5y,
2 replies
It is all about the Constitution. The Constitution provides Congress the "sole authority" to investigate "Treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors." It does not disctate any methods or procedures nor grant the President the power to do so. By not complying with legal subpeonas and by otherwise blocking Congress' access to information, Trump is violating the Constitution in ways the Supreme Court has already ruled on in Nixon v. The United States, and other related decisions. If your principle violates the law of the land, you might not want to brag about it.
3 ups, 5y
You mean like if a president did an end-run around congress to push their agenda with "their pen and their phone"?
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
If they could impeach him they would have, the whole Russiagate thing showed that the democrats are not above using this tools to grab more power for themselves, sure they have constitutional right to impeach the president if he did something wrong, but the Democrats wanted to impeach Trump since he was elected, they are just looking for the excuse, that is not how impeachment power is supposed to be used, it's playing dirty and misusing the system.
2 ups, 5y
In case you did not notice, this is a process to determine if the evidence supports bills of impeachment. So, they are doing it. Until this year, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, and exercized their right to ignore the questionable acts of President Trump. Again, the House of representatives has the sole power to interpret how the impeachment power is supposed to be used, not you or anyone else. No matter how many times you say the same thing, you are 100% wrong.
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
The process is left up to the House of Representatives. In the same paragraph of the Constitution, the Speaker of the House is given the power to convene these committees as she has to do the preliminary gathering of evidence. If they result in Bills of Impeachment, the full House will have to vote. In the mean time, both parties have representatives on these committees. Both parties have the power to question witnesses and introduce proposals, and other actions. Even in Executive Session, the parties have these opportunities.
4 ups, 5y,
1 reply
It's a partisan coup , not an Impeachment Inquiry .
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Oh, a Coup d' etat? You don't read much, do you? Meriam Webster says this would be: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group a military. All of the people involved here were duly elected into the offices empowering them to perform these inquiries. The Constitution and our laws allow them to do so in the process they are using. The process is not sidden or violent. It is following the rule of law and will take as long as it takes to be seen to whatever outcome is indicated by the facts and evidence they gather.
2 ups, 5y
"Duly Elected" like Donald Trump ?
constitution memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT? "THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT."; THAT IS IT. THE INQUIRIES ARE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.