7 thoughts on “If Trump Is Impeached And Not Removed”
No, he should not.
However, if a President is tried for impeachment, and is not removed from office, every member of the Congress that voted FOR (either for the trial, or for removal) should be out of office, for at least two years…
When you strike at the King, you best be sure.
The seats for the senators that voted for removal will be for the remainder of their normal term, the congressfolk are out.
And the two year cooling off period will allow voters to get used to a different incumbent.
The post was mainly tongue-in-cheek. I suspect the rest was “trolling Democrats and NeverTrumpers”.
Morally, maybe, just to spite them.
Legally, no, of course not, because nobody can?
Or… can they?
The 22nd amendment states that no person shall be elected President more than twice.
Democrats have been telling us that Trump was not legitimately elected in 2016. Therefor, by their own logic, Trump has yet to be elected president.
By my count, assuming I believe Democrats, he can run, and win, twice more.
It seems the consequence, of dem impeachment is it will weaken the presidency, unless what dem do results political disaster {not being effective}. So far the endless impeachment process has seemed to be effective opposition to the President and seemed to help Dems regain the the house in 2018.
And if the Dems merely lose the majority in 2020, it might seem a tempting gambit to use against future Presidents.
Weakening the President is not bad, if you think the the Presidency has been given too much power in the “modern Era”.
But one aspect related to giving to much power to the presidency, is the inability of Congress of being effective and it’s general tendency of not wanting to take responsibility- Congress allows the President authority, because they don’t want or can’t take responsibility.
I guess it’s possible to have weak presidency and have do nothing Congress. But seems likely that the idea give the president hundred days to enact his/her mandate given by electorate, might go extinct regardless the what Dem impeachment does now. So that aspect related to stronger presidency seems to be already gone, or hard to see it return within few decades.
But perhaps when Trump wins with landside, if Trump doesn’t run mostly on continuing, but instead introduces something to can seen as mandate, and he then gets his hundred days, perhaps in future, Presidents will only get their hundred days, after they win the second term.
If the Dem house gets slaughtered in 2020, then probably no future congress will ever want to repeat anything vaguely like what the these Dems did.
And rather than weaken the President, it will make the presidency stronger in the future {which is probably a bad thing- generally speaking}.
But it doesn’t seem likely that Dems will be slaughtered, though it seems fairly likely they could simply lose control of the House, again- and Pelosi will lose her speakership, forever. And probably become famous for being worst Speaker of the House- and I believe there is a lot competition for that distinction.
The problem is, they totally don’t mind having a weak President and a weak Congress, because they increasingly draw power from an unelected bureaucracy, which decades of Congresses past have allowed and even encouraged to grow, unchecked by any power within the government.
No, he should not.
However, if a President is tried for impeachment, and is not removed from office, every member of the Congress that voted FOR (either for the trial, or for removal) should be out of office, for at least two years…
When you strike at the King, you best be sure.
The seats for the senators that voted for removal will be for the remainder of their normal term, the congressfolk are out.
And the two year cooling off period will allow voters to get used to a different incumbent.
The post was mainly tongue-in-cheek. I suspect the rest was “trolling Democrats and NeverTrumpers”.
Morally, maybe, just to spite them.
Legally, no, of course not, because nobody can?
Or… can they?
The 22nd amendment states that no person shall be elected President more than twice.
Democrats have been telling us that Trump was not legitimately elected in 2016. Therefor, by their own logic, Trump has yet to be elected president.
By my count, assuming I believe Democrats, he can run, and win, twice more.
It seems the consequence, of dem impeachment is it will weaken the presidency, unless what dem do results political disaster {not being effective}. So far the endless impeachment process has seemed to be effective opposition to the President and seemed to help Dems regain the the house in 2018.
And if the Dems merely lose the majority in 2020, it might seem a tempting gambit to use against future Presidents.
Weakening the President is not bad, if you think the the Presidency has been given too much power in the “modern Era”.
But one aspect related to giving to much power to the presidency, is the inability of Congress of being effective and it’s general tendency of not wanting to take responsibility- Congress allows the President authority, because they don’t want or can’t take responsibility.
I guess it’s possible to have weak presidency and have do nothing Congress. But seems likely that the idea give the president hundred days to enact his/her mandate given by electorate, might go extinct regardless the what Dem impeachment does now. So that aspect related to stronger presidency seems to be already gone, or hard to see it return within few decades.
But perhaps when Trump wins with landside, if Trump doesn’t run mostly on continuing, but instead introduces something to can seen as mandate, and he then gets his hundred days, perhaps in future, Presidents will only get their hundred days, after they win the second term.
If the Dem house gets slaughtered in 2020, then probably no future congress will ever want to repeat anything vaguely like what the these Dems did.
And rather than weaken the President, it will make the presidency stronger in the future {which is probably a bad thing- generally speaking}.
But it doesn’t seem likely that Dems will be slaughtered, though it seems fairly likely they could simply lose control of the House, again- and Pelosi will lose her speakership, forever. And probably become famous for being worst Speaker of the House- and I believe there is a lot competition for that distinction.
The problem is, they totally don’t mind having a weak President and a weak Congress, because they increasingly draw power from an unelected bureaucracy, which decades of Congresses past have allowed and even encouraged to grow, unchecked by any power within the government.
No