A Whole Bunch Of Legal Scholars Say Trump Did Impeachable Stuff

I have to agree with CPT Jack Durish! And of course I'll add my opinion.

The founders wanted a document that everyone could read and understand so that a representative or a President could be held accountable to the Laws they wrote binding them to a limited scope of governance. The Declaration of Independence was a repudiation of monarchical governance.

The Articles of Confederation were written to create a extremely limited governance which the individual states quickly took advantage of, like coining their own currencies and tariffs on state to state trade. The Constitution was written soon after the failure of the Confederacy and was debated by each colony in the public uniting the States behind a common set of laws. It's hard to imagine that some people who take an oath to defend our Constitution do not understand it is a set of laws which governs their processes, not not us. We were left to be a self-governing people.

The Constitution is easy to read and understand and for those that think it's ambiguous, there was a Law written into the document which details the amendment process; Article V was one of the best things they do for we the people to ensure that we could reign overreach with two avenues to amend the Law. One, if the congress, the peoples' representatives, finds a need. And two, if congress fails in their duties and/or becomes corrupt, the states are authorized to convene a convention to propose and vote on amendments to reign in the corruption or force them to do their job.

Legislation by itself is not an Amendment and any legislation that falls outside the Article I Section VIII enumerated powers should be vetoed or thrown out by the SCOTUS for violating the mandated Constitutional limits of the Congress.

Of course you agree, Cpl S. But I’ll ask you same question, particularly since you bring up the Supreme Court using judicial review. As that is not a function granted to the courts under the Constitution, when the constitution was written, was it their intent that the States had the power of judicial review over federal legislation?

While you and CPT Jack Durish claim the constitution is simple to read, I’m curious to understand why you both claim the necessary and proper clause is limited to the enumerated powers? I’d ask if either of you have actually read it.

I’d only ask, because the clause itself states, “ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Simply translated, Congress has the power to make laws that are necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powered and all other powers vested in the Constitution. If you disagree, please explain.

Furthermore, while CPT D insists that ‘progressives’ are to blame for muddying the constitutional waters, I can then only conclude that he considers the founding fathers to be progressives. Marbury v Madison (1803) and McCulloch v Maryland (1819) are two the most important Supreme Court decisions in our history. And as they were decided by Supreme Courts that were comprised mainly of founding fathers, it’s safe to assume that they had a good grasp on the original intent of the founding fathers.

What is particularly interesting about McCulloch is the acknowledgement of implied powers in the Constitution. Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the necessary and proper clause was intended, “.. to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.” Darned progressive.

Lastly, CPT D, another follow up question. About impeachment/conviction appeal, you previously wrote, “ Appeal to impeachment? There is none. If the Constitution provided for it, there would be one”. Fair enough. I’d ask, after the Nixon impeachment, why did the Court even hear his appeal when he took his case there? By you rationale, wouldn’t the act of the Court even hearing the case be Unconstitutional?

“ It's hard to imagine that some people who take an oath to defend our Constitution do not understand it is a set of laws which governs their processes”. I absolutely agree.

1SG (Join to see)

Because it's black and white and the Tenth Amendment clarifies "necessary and proper." Which Constitution did you swear to defend, Sgt?

The POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION (ARTICLE ! SECTION VIII), nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately Cpl S, your explanation is unsatisfactory. The 10th amendment does not black and white clarify necessary and proper.

I’ll ask, do you understand what I’m asking with judicial review? It’s the ability of the courts to determine the Constitutionality of legislation.

This really only requires a yes or no answer. Do you think the founding fathers intended for the states to have the power of judicial review? That each state had the ability to deem federal legislation unconstitutional.

I swore to to defend the Constitution that you don’t quite appear to understand in some aspects. It’s ok. If you have an open mind, you might just learn something.

SGT John S. - Interesting one of the foremost liberal legal scholars in the country, Alan Dershowitz, is on the side of Trump and says this impeachment is all wrong. What does he get for speaking up, threats to his security, his family, and to his social network from the far left............and amazingly no invitation by the Democrats to testify before Congress on the issue. What does that tell you on where they are headed on this issue?

“ Reason being is the founding fathers would never have designed an AMENDMENT process to the Constitution if they believed in the Judicial Activist position of law interpretation.”

In Federalist 78, Publius wrote that, “ The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

The Founding Fathers always intended for the Courts to have the powers to interpret laws. Hamilton explained as such in his defense of the Constitution in the Federalist papers.

SGT (Join to see) - I think the part your missing is "interpret the laws as written". Nowhere does it state that the Constitution is a living document and that its interpretation should change over time without amendment to it. In fact that is the reason legal precedent is so heavily relied on to keep the initial interpretation from changing and keep our unamemded laws consistent over time.

SPC Erich Guenther - respectfully, I’d recommend you read Federalist 78. I assure you, I cited it accurately.

Here’s a question. Please point to where in the Constitution it describes implied powers. If you can’t find them in the Constitution, do they exist?