Posted on Dec 29, 2019
The case for letting senators vote secretly on Trump's fate
630
41
26
7
7
0
Posted in these groups: 
United States Senate
Donald Trump
United States Senate Donald Trump
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 11
9
9
0
Secret votes, second and third hand hearsay witnesses- all we need to learn now is the goose step.
(9)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
LTC David Brown - If you have no case or a weak case you run the accusations and trial via shady processes in an attempt to make your case which has previously failed to be made before the American people. Trump has no better ally in his re-election than the Democratic Party. They will again be to solely blame for the 2020 election results just as they were for 2016 by fielding a candidate with a major credibility issue.
(1)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Simple: allow the witnesses to testify, and provide the requested documents. Plain and simple. Then we don't need a secret vote. The public will learn the truth.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Nope. Not buying it. In fact, I'm not convinced that secret ballot has served the nation well, not in any circumstance. Yes, I know all the arguments for secret ballot, especially voters ballots in general elections. However, citizens survived public declarations of their support for candidates. Sure, there are those who can be intimidated, but anyone who fears consequences of voting is likely to fear the consequences of any decision they make which makes them a poor candidate for citizenship in a republic in which every free act carries consequences. Indeed, the popular movement towards socialism is largely fueled by those who fear personal responsibility that is the obverse side of the same coin on which personal liberty is stamped.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
Those that hide in the shadows deserve no credibility let alone ability to judge others. Cowards hide behind secret ballots all the time. If you can't say it out in the open and stand behind your vote you are worthless and just an oxygen thief.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Indeed, I did bring up Madison. However, I haven’t, “... compared him to the current batch of thieves, liars and scoundrels.”
The original post regarded a potential silent vote. Your post made your opinion on the matter fairly apparent.
I ask about Madison because anonymity in politics is older than our country, itself. As arguably our greatest politician-ever-, Madison (and many others) embraced and utilized the art of anonymity with skill and precision. Rarely, if ever, did they do so out of cowardice or fear. (From capture, public outing, or anything else).
One of the biggest reasons was in the hope of avoiding strawman arguments. Anonymity lets the information speak for itself. Hamilton, Madison and Jay didn’t want their name-power alone to help sway (in either direction) public influence for support of the newly drafted Constitution. Rather, ‘Publius’ hoped his compelling arguments would garner the necessary support.
Another reason they recognized the importance of the respect of anonymity was that they realized the real nature of people and politics. An author once wrote that if essayists were forced to print their names, they would make themselves vulnerable to the “Clamour of Party, or the Resentment of Power.. and The Cause of Liberty would often be left to suffer.” -Unknown, 1765.
1765. 250 years or so later, truer words haven’t been written. If the President has proven to be anything, it’s that he’s mean, aggressive and will attack any foe, or friend for that matter, that he views as a threat. Adversaries, The Press, political rivals...doesn’t really matter who. For example, as soon as he perceived folks like Mattis or Napolitano to be critical, he focused his attacks on them.
I think we both agree that the President will be acquitted in his trial. I really can’t envision a scenario where he isn’t. But I can certainly see a handful of Republicans voting to convict. However, they might think twice about voting to convict (believing he’ll be acquitted) knowing that an already vindictive President, and many others in the Party, will be in office the day after the trial. It was as true in 1765 as it is today.
So why bring up Madison? It’s not to compare him to the current batch of politicians. It’s important to point out that our greatest politician embraced the idea of anonymity. Article 1, section 5, clauses2-3 of the Constitution (as I’m sure you’re aware, describe rules for Congressional proceedings) don’t prohibit/forbid silent votes. Madison was the primary author of the Constitution. Point being...if a level of anonymity was good enough for him, isn’t it good enough for us? That is why I bring him up.
*for the folks in this thread who have argued that the ‘rationale’ for a secret vote in the Senate is somehow only politically motivated against President Trump, please see attached article. The same argument for secret ballot was made by the Harvard Crimson during the Clinton impeachment.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1999/2/5/the-senate-should-vote-in-secret/
The original post regarded a potential silent vote. Your post made your opinion on the matter fairly apparent.
I ask about Madison because anonymity in politics is older than our country, itself. As arguably our greatest politician-ever-, Madison (and many others) embraced and utilized the art of anonymity with skill and precision. Rarely, if ever, did they do so out of cowardice or fear. (From capture, public outing, or anything else).
One of the biggest reasons was in the hope of avoiding strawman arguments. Anonymity lets the information speak for itself. Hamilton, Madison and Jay didn’t want their name-power alone to help sway (in either direction) public influence for support of the newly drafted Constitution. Rather, ‘Publius’ hoped his compelling arguments would garner the necessary support.
Another reason they recognized the importance of the respect of anonymity was that they realized the real nature of people and politics. An author once wrote that if essayists were forced to print their names, they would make themselves vulnerable to the “Clamour of Party, or the Resentment of Power.. and The Cause of Liberty would often be left to suffer.” -Unknown, 1765.
1765. 250 years or so later, truer words haven’t been written. If the President has proven to be anything, it’s that he’s mean, aggressive and will attack any foe, or friend for that matter, that he views as a threat. Adversaries, The Press, political rivals...doesn’t really matter who. For example, as soon as he perceived folks like Mattis or Napolitano to be critical, he focused his attacks on them.
I think we both agree that the President will be acquitted in his trial. I really can’t envision a scenario where he isn’t. But I can certainly see a handful of Republicans voting to convict. However, they might think twice about voting to convict (believing he’ll be acquitted) knowing that an already vindictive President, and many others in the Party, will be in office the day after the trial. It was as true in 1765 as it is today.
So why bring up Madison? It’s not to compare him to the current batch of politicians. It’s important to point out that our greatest politician embraced the idea of anonymity. Article 1, section 5, clauses2-3 of the Constitution (as I’m sure you’re aware, describe rules for Congressional proceedings) don’t prohibit/forbid silent votes. Madison was the primary author of the Constitution. Point being...if a level of anonymity was good enough for him, isn’t it good enough for us? That is why I bring him up.
*for the folks in this thread who have argued that the ‘rationale’ for a secret vote in the Senate is somehow only politically motivated against President Trump, please see attached article. The same argument for secret ballot was made by the Harvard Crimson during the Clinton impeachment.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1999/2/5/the-senate-should-vote-in-secret/
The Senate Should Vote in Secret | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson
T he Constitution makes clear that the Senate may convict an impeached president with the "concurrence of two-thirds of the
(0)
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
SGT (Join to see) - TLDR, again I say that I respond to who is in office now, I still fell that way and still support what I said. When I post here or anywhere on Social Media I use (ROI) Return on Investment, to determine my responses. So going off target with diversion is high on my list of not worth the effort, good luck though.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
For sure. However, if you’d read the 7 short mini paragraphs, you’d realize that it wasn’t off target and it wasn’t diversion.
If you’re really interested in your return on investment, invest the 100 seconds it might take to read the previous post. Your return would be far greater. Heck, in this thread, you’ve already learned that Madison and others didn’t use pen names out of fear of capture, torture and death at the hands of the British.
Imagine what another just minute and a half of reading or might do.
Anyway, it appears as though this won’t go much further. Happy new year, and best of luck to you.
If you’re really interested in your return on investment, invest the 100 seconds it might take to read the previous post. Your return would be far greater. Heck, in this thread, you’ve already learned that Madison and others didn’t use pen names out of fear of capture, torture and death at the hands of the British.
Imagine what another just minute and a half of reading or might do.
Anyway, it appears as though this won’t go much further. Happy new year, and best of luck to you.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google