In terms of the standards of both agreeing to some things and expressing outrage towards other things, the United States had a Cold War program to develop a weapon called Pluto, which was a nuclear-thermal ramjet cruise missile of hypersonic speed and for practical purposes, unlimited range and loiter capability.
Unlike the nuclear-powered airplane and more like the NERVA nuclear-thermal rocket engine, this thing would probably shed particles of its graphite-moderated reactor along with fission products or fuel embedded in same. The proper outrage word is that it would “spew” radiation once launched, travelling to-and-fro with its unlimited range until commanded to Drop the Big One on an adversary. You can also tell if a person is properly “tuned in” when they use words like that, “cherry pick” as in criticizing some for “not following the science” is also on a list I am compiling.
The program was cancelled for its limitations along with the horror of this thing spreading radiation along its flight path.
Apparently the current-day Russians have their Burevestnik (“Storm bringer” — our code name for it is “Skyfall”), and supposedly, they had an accident with it where one of their engineers perished in attempting to recover it from the sea floor after a crash, though Wikipedia says there is some doubt, and we all know Wikipedia to be thorough, unbiased and reliable.
So my reaction, as a research engineer and a “technology geek” was, “You mean to tell me after the US cancelled this horrible piece of technology 60 years ago, the Russians have gone ahead and built such a thing? Cool!”
That’s interesting, Paul, but it doesn’t seem relevant to this post.
President Trump has been impeached twice.
This stimulates the outrage regions of the brain, on both the Left that he needed to be impeached and the Right that Congress dared to impeach.
The “bring on the popcorn” faction is a third way, reacting by saying “cool!”
Besides Rand, you know that this particular post for some reason isn’t going to draw many responses and much traffic to your site.
Furthermore, you know me well enough by now when I post an off-topic post like that on your fine Web site where you are generously supplying the bandwidth, there has to be a pony somewhere associated with the steaming pile of equine efflux?
My view is that Congress doesn’t have the power to impeach anyone who doesn’t hold a particular type of office.
Article II section 4 references impeachment as applying to:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States
The civil officers are those holding appointments in the executive and judicial branches, but does not include military offices. Legislators cannot be impeached, much less ordinary citizens.
I also don’t think that impeachment can bar a person from holding the office of President once again, as the phrasing used is “office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”. Seth Barrett Tillman explained the meanings of such Constitutional terms in an important paper on the Emolument’s Clause, and his deep dive into the otherwise obscure terminology has been cited by federal courts, and seems to be definitive and unchallenged.
If we went with the Democrat’s interpretations of their powers, they could’ve just impeached Trump back in the summer of 2016 so he couldn’t challenge Hillary. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.
“I also don’t think that impeachment can bar a person from holding the office of President once again, as the phrasing used is “office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”. Seth Barrett Tillman explained the meanings of such Constitutional terms in an important paper on the Emolument’s Clause, and his deep dive into the otherwise obscure terminology has been cited by federal courts, and seems to be definitive and unchallenged.”
It can if Biden and the threat-of-filibuster-free Senate can stack the courts with enough “living document” types judges George. It (the law) can be interpreted to mean what said judges say it means.
I think it will be interesting to see where this goes. I do expect Pelosi to defer sending the motions to the Senate in the first 100 days. Biden doesn’t want a distracted Senate holding up his nominations or COVID ‘relief’. Later this summer, when normally we’d start to see sputters on part of the new admin will be the time to revive Hate Week (Hate Month?) in the Senate. Assuming there will be a lack of 2/3rds needed to convict the former president, how can a sentence be imposed? Is an impeachment of a ‘former’ President even Constitutional? It will all end up in the Supreme Court for sure.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The guy who tweeted something like, Trump asking people to peacefully protest is incitment to violence but Democrat’s telling people to violently riot was peaceful, nailed it.
We live in bizzaro world. Democrats think this is uniting the country.
What would be really hilarious is if the Democrats admitted that they stole the election, provided proof of same, and made Trump come back and be President…and then removed him from office! Heck, I’d pay to see that one…
Impeachment has now been reduced to being nothing but a PR stunt/slap on the wrist.
Especially since it was managed in about a week’s time, Trump’s side was never given a chance to speak,
and the chances of a Senate hearing let alone a conviction are slim.
So another important institution and tool created by the Founders to control non-angelic man has been rendered useless.
In terms of the standards of both agreeing to some things and expressing outrage towards other things, the United States had a Cold War program to develop a weapon called Pluto, which was a nuclear-thermal ramjet cruise missile of hypersonic speed and for practical purposes, unlimited range and loiter capability.
Unlike the nuclear-powered airplane and more like the NERVA nuclear-thermal rocket engine, this thing would probably shed particles of its graphite-moderated reactor along with fission products or fuel embedded in same. The proper outrage word is that it would “spew” radiation once launched, travelling to-and-fro with its unlimited range until commanded to Drop the Big One on an adversary. You can also tell if a person is properly “tuned in” when they use words like that, “cherry pick” as in criticizing some for “not following the science” is also on a list I am compiling.
The program was cancelled for its limitations along with the horror of this thing spreading radiation along its flight path.
Apparently the current-day Russians have their Burevestnik (“Storm bringer” — our code name for it is “Skyfall”), and supposedly, they had an accident with it where one of their engineers perished in attempting to recover it from the sea floor after a crash, though Wikipedia says there is some doubt, and we all know Wikipedia to be thorough, unbiased and reliable.
So my reaction, as a research engineer and a “technology geek” was, “You mean to tell me after the US cancelled this horrible piece of technology 60 years ago, the Russians have gone ahead and built such a thing? Cool!”
That’s interesting, Paul, but it doesn’t seem relevant to this post.
President Trump has been impeached twice.
This stimulates the outrage regions of the brain, on both the Left that he needed to be impeached and the Right that Congress dared to impeach.
The “bring on the popcorn” faction is a third way, reacting by saying “cool!”
Besides Rand, you know that this particular post for some reason isn’t going to draw many responses and much traffic to your site.
Furthermore, you know me well enough by now when I post an off-topic post like that on your fine Web site where you are generously supplying the bandwidth, there has to be a pony somewhere associated with the steaming pile of equine efflux?
My view is that Congress doesn’t have the power to impeach anyone who doesn’t hold a particular type of office.
Article II section 4 references impeachment as applying to:
The civil officers are those holding appointments in the executive and judicial branches, but does not include military offices. Legislators cannot be impeached, much less ordinary citizens.
I also don’t think that impeachment can bar a person from holding the office of President once again, as the phrasing used is “office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”. Seth Barrett Tillman explained the meanings of such Constitutional terms in an important paper on the Emolument’s Clause, and his deep dive into the otherwise obscure terminology has been cited by federal courts, and seems to be definitive and unchallenged.
If we went with the Democrat’s interpretations of their powers, they could’ve just impeached Trump back in the summer of 2016 so he couldn’t challenge Hillary. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.
“I also don’t think that impeachment can bar a person from holding the office of President once again, as the phrasing used is “office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”. Seth Barrett Tillman explained the meanings of such Constitutional terms in an important paper on the Emolument’s Clause, and his deep dive into the otherwise obscure terminology has been cited by federal courts, and seems to be definitive and unchallenged.”
It can if Biden and the threat-of-filibuster-free Senate can stack the courts with enough “living document” types judges George. It (the law) can be interpreted to mean what said judges say it means.
I think it will be interesting to see where this goes. I do expect Pelosi to defer sending the motions to the Senate in the first 100 days. Biden doesn’t want a distracted Senate holding up his nominations or COVID ‘relief’. Later this summer, when normally we’d start to see sputters on part of the new admin will be the time to revive Hate Week (Hate Month?) in the Senate. Assuming there will be a lack of 2/3rds needed to convict the former president, how can a sentence be imposed? Is an impeachment of a ‘former’ President even Constitutional? It will all end up in the Supreme Court for sure.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The guy who tweeted something like, Trump asking people to peacefully protest is incitment to violence but Democrat’s telling people to violently riot was peaceful, nailed it.
We live in bizzaro world. Democrats think this is uniting the country.
What would be really hilarious is if the Democrats admitted that they stole the election, provided proof of same, and made Trump come back and be President…and then removed him from office! Heck, I’d pay to see that one…
Impeachment has now been reduced to being nothing but a PR stunt/slap on the wrist.
Especially since it was managed in about a week’s time, Trump’s side was never given a chance to speak,
and the chances of a Senate hearing let alone a conviction are slim.
So another important institution and tool created by the Founders to control non-angelic man has been rendered useless.