Biden to be impeached?

[ColinEssex]

Isaac beat me to it.

Col, in the USA, impeachment is a specific term in political context that is the equivalent of the legal term "indictment" - meaning a formal hearing has decided that there is something to be more closely investigated. But the second half of EITHER impeachment or indictment is "conviction" - and for Mr. Trump, that is the part that DIDN'T happen. Yes, he got impeached twice. Yes, they failed to convict both times.

Weird
Col

 

[ColinEssex]

There's only one 'L' in Colin. If it's difficult for you, then look at my username to help you, the clue is there.
Plus of course, you totally miss what I'm trying to say, one day when you haven't got me on ignore, I'll explain it, I'm not wasting my time if you can't read it.
Col

 

[moke123]

the fact that our Constitution states explicitly that you are innocent until proven guilty

No, it doesn't.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Innocent until proven guilty is implied in several places in the US Constitution.

Where Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty Found in the Constitution?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a well-known term that establishes a precedent in criminal law cases. However, is it found in the US Constitution?

constitutionus.com

 

[moke123]

Innocent until proven guilty is implied in several places in the US Constitution.

Where Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty Found in the Constitution?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a well-known term that establishes a precedent in criminal law cases. However, is it found in the US Constitution?

constitutionus.com

It's a judicial construct. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution as stated.
See Coffin v U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

Weren't you guys arguing that the right to an abortion is not in the constitution therefore there is no right to one?

 

[NauticalGent]

Impeached = Accused, not Convicted. Big difference

 

[moke123]

The phrase is a shorthand way of saying what the V, VI, and X1V say in longer terms.

Nope, its based on the due process clause, which is not defined in the constitution either. Its a result of judicial construct which could change with one bad decision.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

It's a judicial construct. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution as stated.
See Coffin v U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

Weren't you guys arguing that the right to an abortion is not in the constitution therefore there is no right to one?

SCOTUS recently ruled that the constitution doesn't give the right to abortion. Depending on how far the pregnancy is, the unborn could actually survive. Would that not be considered murder in that case?

 

[moke123]

SCOTUS recently ruled that the constitution doesn't give the right to abortion. Depending on how far the pregnancy is, the unborn could actually survive. Would that not be considered murder in that case?

A good example how one bad decision can change a penumbral right.

 

[ColinEssex]

Impeached = Accused, not Convicted.

Thanks for the straight reply NG. That's the best explanation for impeached.
You see, impeached is not a word used in the UK as far as I know. So it must be one of those weird American words like sidewalk or faucet or calling a garden a yard. Also, some of the posters here view the orange idiot through Rose tinted glasses so they are deaf to any criticism of the idiot, did you know he wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon? Its on YouTube. To support a crazy fool like that people must have a screw loose.
Col

 

[AngelSpeaks]

A good example how one bad decision can change a penumbral right.

No, that decision put the issue of abortion onto the states. Perhaps if some far right activists didn't push for abortions up to 40 weeks, this wouldn't have happened. It happened because the left tried to challenge a red states law that restricted it to 15 weeks. The activists challenged the wrong attorneys and got SCOTUS to review Roe vs Wade.

 

[NauticalGent]

did you know he wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon? Its on YouTube. To support a crazy fool like that people must have a screw loose.

New one on me and if accurate, I totally agree...

 

[ColinEssex]

New one on me and if accurate, I totally agree...

I'm sure it's fake, but it is on YouTube.
BTW what is SCOTUS? Americans always speak in abbreviations just confuse us foreigners.
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

I'm sure it's fake, but it is on YouTube.
BTW what is SCOTUS? Americans always speak in abbreviations just confuse us foreigners.
Col

Supreme Court of the United States. And Colin @isladogs has NO issue with abbreviations!

 

[ColinEssex]

Supreme Court of the United States. And Colin @isladogs has NO issue with abbreviations!

Ha ha - yes well Colin is clever. To me SCOTUS sounds like some sort of infection men get involving a rash in the trouser department.
Col

 

[conception_native_0123]

The idiot Trump was and he continued to be president

wasn't bill clinton too?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

And Colin @isladogs has NO issue with abbreviations!

Colin... The Master of Acronyms!

Edit Colin - MBA - Master of Bloody Acronyms

 

[Isaac]

It's a judicial construct. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution as stated.
See Coffin v U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

Weren't you guys arguing that the right to an abortion is not in the constitution therefore there is no right to one?

Derived, implied, blah blah blah - I'm not opposed to the idea that some of that is legitimate, to be honest with you. (Yes, I wish we could go back to the days before the interstate commerce theories blossomed, but unfortunately there is no going back on that one - I view that as the single most destructive thing to the States that ever happened).

Let's be honest, most people would be hard pressed to say there should be none of that. It's a question of degree, of extent.

Do we keep coming up with gigantic new categories and basically invent things out of whole cloth, to "keep up with society's ever-evolving whims" ? I think most conservatives view liberals as basically taking that approach. It just seems so arbitrary, so baseless, so degrading to the idea of having a written law that really means much - serious, reliable meaning both from what it says and what it fails to say.

PS, it's funny to watch Kamela Harris try (but not very hard) to accuse conservatives of "judicial activism" and "activist court".
Everyone who has any constitutional law knowledge knows that judicial activism is the opposite of that, J.A. is on the side of the liberals that invent new meanings and ideas and concepts out of nothing more often than anyone else does ..... and twist the original law until it's sitting on its head to support whatever society wants today: That is, and has always been, what judicial activism means.

Harris surely knows this of course, but is hoping that it catches on with the layman watching the speech.
The funny thing is it's not a very good plan. "Activist" is seen as a GOOD WORD with liberals. They may be furrowing their brows, confused at why conservatives are being offered such a title.

The whole thing is like watching Jean Pierre try to finish a full sentence, or look someone in the eye. Face it, the Dem party has literally stopped even trying by making hires like that.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ha ha - yes well Colin is clever. To me SCOTUS sounds like some sort of infection men get involving a rash in the trouser department.
Col

The word is missing an "R" for that to be valid. Also, in strict Latin use, the word to which you refer is actually neither male nor female, but neuter, even though its occurrence is uniquely male in the real world. From what I have heard, it's the part that Prince Andrew primarily uses for thinking.

 

[ColinEssex]

The word is missing an "R" for that to be valid. Also, in strict Latin use, the word to which you refer is actually neither male nor female, but neuter, even though its occurrence is uniquely male in the real world.

It was a joke doc, lighten up for christ sake.
Col