Posted on Dec 19, 2019
130
130
0
Update - 09 Mar 2020: Again, the impeachment is over. The nation has other important issues to address. Some who have recently responded here are using language not indicative of their maturity. In fact such language is immature.
Please, if you are going to insert emotion vs facts and language that demonstrates your lack of thought, I'd rather not read words like "NAZI" and other thoughtless attacks on people's opinions who have provided well written responses here. There are many that have written well on both sides of this question and I was informed well on both sides. To you I want to say - Thank you!
Keep in mind that people have the right to their opinions and I respect that. I may not agree, but I respect that. What I don't respect are those who believe that using vulgar and disrespectful language as a last resort for their weak counter arguments by tossing around epithets.
Again, I want to thank those RIGHT, CENTER and LEFT that responded in a responsible manner to each other and this question in general. To those who used language that draws your professionalism and maturity into question please get a drink, clam down and take a deep breath! If needs be please get some counseling!
The whole intent of this post was to pose a question and seek differing opinions to gain a deeper perspective, which has been achieved. Lets move on!
--------------------------------------
Update - 01 Mar 2020: The 'trial' is over. Now a new set of issues exist that we as a nation have to handle. Continue to feel free to respond!
--------------------------------------
For the sake of clarity here is the wording to the 6th Amendment (aka 1st 10 Amendments otherwise known as - Bill of Rights):
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
The operative wording is "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
By threatening to delay forwarding the recent Articles of Impeachment to the US Senator it would appear that the Speaker is in "Contempt of the American People" (roughly 320 million, men, women and children) regardless of citizenship status.
By asking for "confirmation" of a "...fair trial..." in advance, it would appear to be yet another "linguistic trap" that was not offered in any two prior impeachments or the one imminent impeachment. A sub-question might be - why? It also, seems that every murder, rapist, burglar, arsonist, thief, etc. could then demand as president set by Speaker of the House that a "written guarantee" be offered by every jury for the same. This would seem to undermine our jurisprudence system of "innocent until proven guilty" system.
Even those indicted in a normal court process have the right to a trial to confirm innocence or guilt. If no one is "...above the law..." does it also not stand to reason that "...no person is below the dignity of law of which that person is being accused?"
The question is then:
Is the Speaker of the House in contempt of the US Senate to fulfill the Senate's Article 1, Section 3 responsibilities specific to the 6th Amendments guarantee for a speedy trial?
----------
Follow-up: To those that have responded so far. Thank you! This is the kind of lively, yet professional (so far), response I was hoping to get. It is import we as Americans derive our own understandings of this process. I would rather as such a question and seek the insights of the RP family in all their diversity, than to listen to just one source to gain perspective. Thank you in advance for your responses. Collectively, as the Founders knew and spoken by Jefferson these words ring true:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
AND
"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526
FINALLY
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207 (PLUS) "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384 (AND) "Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.
The Founders, especially Jefferson, understood that healthy debate comes from being informed. My goal is always to stimulate conversation that gives me an others to discern for ourselves on balance what is or is not true, or a best truthful! Again, I appreciate each member of the RP family!
---------------
Follow-up (2) - 16 Jan 2020:
I want to thank everyone for the responses to this post. It has been and continues to be an interesting discussion. But, it brings up one more issue. Some have considered that it is time, given the antics on both sides that a Constitutional Impeachment Amendment be developed to further codify the impeachment process to begin to remove it from the political to the criminal and set higher standards and processes for this process.
But, that question of whether or not a constitutional impeachment amendment should or should not be pursued will be created in a separate post, but linked to this post. I find it interesting that some voices are beginning to rise in favor of this.
Once the Senate Trial is finished and a "cooling off period" as it were insues, it would not surprise me if this topic of a constitutional impeachment amendment were addressed. I think the nation completely understood the need for Nixon's impeachment in a very bi-partisan manner. But, I believe the population as a whole (right-center-left) who are thinking "independently" is getting tired tit-for-tat politics.
So, this new issue of an amendment to better manage the impeachment process as we emerge to begin another 250 yrs of independence will be interesting.
Please, if you are going to insert emotion vs facts and language that demonstrates your lack of thought, I'd rather not read words like "NAZI" and other thoughtless attacks on people's opinions who have provided well written responses here. There are many that have written well on both sides of this question and I was informed well on both sides. To you I want to say - Thank you!
Keep in mind that people have the right to their opinions and I respect that. I may not agree, but I respect that. What I don't respect are those who believe that using vulgar and disrespectful language as a last resort for their weak counter arguments by tossing around epithets.
Again, I want to thank those RIGHT, CENTER and LEFT that responded in a responsible manner to each other and this question in general. To those who used language that draws your professionalism and maturity into question please get a drink, clam down and take a deep breath! If needs be please get some counseling!
The whole intent of this post was to pose a question and seek differing opinions to gain a deeper perspective, which has been achieved. Lets move on!
--------------------------------------
Update - 01 Mar 2020: The 'trial' is over. Now a new set of issues exist that we as a nation have to handle. Continue to feel free to respond!
--------------------------------------
For the sake of clarity here is the wording to the 6th Amendment (aka 1st 10 Amendments otherwise known as - Bill of Rights):
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
The operative wording is "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
By threatening to delay forwarding the recent Articles of Impeachment to the US Senator it would appear that the Speaker is in "Contempt of the American People" (roughly 320 million, men, women and children) regardless of citizenship status.
By asking for "confirmation" of a "...fair trial..." in advance, it would appear to be yet another "linguistic trap" that was not offered in any two prior impeachments or the one imminent impeachment. A sub-question might be - why? It also, seems that every murder, rapist, burglar, arsonist, thief, etc. could then demand as president set by Speaker of the House that a "written guarantee" be offered by every jury for the same. This would seem to undermine our jurisprudence system of "innocent until proven guilty" system.
Even those indicted in a normal court process have the right to a trial to confirm innocence or guilt. If no one is "...above the law..." does it also not stand to reason that "...no person is below the dignity of law of which that person is being accused?"
The question is then:
Is the Speaker of the House in contempt of the US Senate to fulfill the Senate's Article 1, Section 3 responsibilities specific to the 6th Amendments guarantee for a speedy trial?
----------
Follow-up: To those that have responded so far. Thank you! This is the kind of lively, yet professional (so far), response I was hoping to get. It is import we as Americans derive our own understandings of this process. I would rather as such a question and seek the insights of the RP family in all their diversity, than to listen to just one source to gain perspective. Thank you in advance for your responses. Collectively, as the Founders knew and spoken by Jefferson these words ring true:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
AND
"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526
FINALLY
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207 (PLUS) "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384 (AND) "Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.
The Founders, especially Jefferson, understood that healthy debate comes from being informed. My goal is always to stimulate conversation that gives me an others to discern for ourselves on balance what is or is not true, or a best truthful! Again, I appreciate each member of the RP family!
---------------
Follow-up (2) - 16 Jan 2020:
I want to thank everyone for the responses to this post. It has been and continues to be an interesting discussion. But, it brings up one more issue. Some have considered that it is time, given the antics on both sides that a Constitutional Impeachment Amendment be developed to further codify the impeachment process to begin to remove it from the political to the criminal and set higher standards and processes for this process.
But, that question of whether or not a constitutional impeachment amendment should or should not be pursued will be created in a separate post, but linked to this post. I find it interesting that some voices are beginning to rise in favor of this.
Once the Senate Trial is finished and a "cooling off period" as it were insues, it would not surprise me if this topic of a constitutional impeachment amendment were addressed. I think the nation completely understood the need for Nixon's impeachment in a very bi-partisan manner. But, I believe the population as a whole (right-center-left) who are thinking "independently" is getting tired tit-for-tat politics.
So, this new issue of an amendment to better manage the impeachment process as we emerge to begin another 250 yrs of independence will be interesting.
Posted in these groups: 
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS)
Supreme Court
United States SenateU.S. House of Representatives
Congress Office of the President (POTUS) Supreme Court United States SenateU.S. House of Representatives
Edited 4 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 79
88
88
0
Impeachment and trial is an administrative political action, not a criminal trial. The Constitution has no time requirement for transfer. I suspect Pelosi is working things for maximum political advantage vs. anything to do with fairness. Interesting thing. If criminal law is violated which results in a removal from office, then the person can be arrested, tried, and punished accordingly. Since no criminal trial previously occurred, then there is no double jeopardy. That was the case for Nixon for which Ford jumped in right away with the pardon. It cost Ford the next election because too many people wanted their pound of flesh. However time has shown there was a significant benefit for the Country being able to move on. BTW there are no 5th Amendment protections either on administrative actions.
(88)
(0)
SPC Daniel Rankin
SSG Michael Doolittle - I was not a peace time soldier. Gulf war soldiers were not peace time soldiers and I do have the proof to back it up. Do little is a good name for you. So respect to those who have been through much. I worked with a lot of the best soldiers in the war. 3/37th Ar and being a recovery specialist is not exactly an easy job. rescuing scouts who got lost all the time in the desert. hmmmm wonder if you were one of them.
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Doolittle
SPC Daniel Rankin - 1986 to 1994.... The gulf war on the ground lasted 100 hours, the air assault lasted 38 days, very few casualties, and you were a systems mechanic.... Hardly a combat veteran
(0)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. - It is difficult to understand how you think a person is successful when they repeatedly file bankruptcy! Trump has been found to be lying repeatedly, nearly a daily basis. You appear to be a total Trumpflake!
(0)
(0)
48
48
0
The 6th Amendment is not applicable, at least in the narrow context of the question, because impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
The Senate will set rules for how the trial will be conducted. Trump or his attorneys can make motions as to what they'd like, subject to rulings from the Chief Justice or majority vote of the members present.
The Senate will set rules for how the trial will be conducted. Trump or his attorneys can make motions as to what they'd like, subject to rulings from the Chief Justice or majority vote of the members present.
(48)
(0)
MSgt Brian Williams
So now that trump as admitted he did what he was accused of has anyone's opinion changed. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11
Trump essentially admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment...
President Donald Trump acknowledged that he held up military aid to pressure Ukraine to give in to his political demands.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSgt Brian Williams - I can only speak for myself; the rest of the US will get a chance to render judgment on November.
For me, what had occurred was never in doubt, and all the months of posturing and preaching and hypocritically invoking the founding fathers didn't move the needle much.
The question wasn't so much what happened, it was whether or not the President should be removed from office for it.
As one could reasonably assume, where people fell on that depended on whether they had a D or an R after their name, or identified as such.
The right answer is oversight. And what the House did was basically say "F*** oversight, we are going for the whole enchilada."
Well they tried that, and in their haste (although this thread is about their weird pause in their hastiness) they blew it. This is all on them, and I hope their voters ask the hard questions over the course of election season.
If it was up to me, I'd vote out every single incumbent on the ballot. They all failed us in this process.
For me, what had occurred was never in doubt, and all the months of posturing and preaching and hypocritically invoking the founding fathers didn't move the needle much.
The question wasn't so much what happened, it was whether or not the President should be removed from office for it.
As one could reasonably assume, where people fell on that depended on whether they had a D or an R after their name, or identified as such.
The right answer is oversight. And what the House did was basically say "F*** oversight, we are going for the whole enchilada."
Well they tried that, and in their haste (although this thread is about their weird pause in their hastiness) they blew it. This is all on them, and I hope their voters ask the hard questions over the course of election season.
If it was up to me, I'd vote out every single incumbent on the ballot. They all failed us in this process.
(0)
(0)
PO1 David Shepardson
MSgt Brian Williams - What about the treaty with the Ukraine about investigating crimes, this never saw daylight. Just because one of those who might be investigate was a candidate for president should have no bearing on the use of the treaty to investigate crime.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Brian Williams
PO1 David Shepardson - In a normal case where the United States seeks assistance in investigating an American citizen, the U.S. Justice Department would OPEN A CASE WITHIN ITS OWN JURISDICTION AND THEN ASK THE UKRAINE FOR HELP.
If the United States had followed these procedures in the case of the energy company Burisma and Biden’s son, Hunter, there is little doubt that Ukrainian law enforcement authorities would have fully cooperated. This administration didn't do that. They held up allocated and much needed military aid to a country at war at the insistence that they open a case. Why didn't they open a case on Hunter Biden here in this country?
If the United States had followed these procedures in the case of the energy company Burisma and Biden’s son, Hunter, there is little doubt that Ukrainian law enforcement authorities would have fully cooperated. This administration didn't do that. They held up allocated and much needed military aid to a country at war at the insistence that they open a case. Why didn't they open a case on Hunter Biden here in this country?
(1)
(0)
The President is not facing criminal prosecution, so that amendment is immaterial to the impeachment.
(20)
(0)
SSG Michael Doolittle
Cynthia C. He was on a Board of Directors, they commonly have people who have connections, influence, etc as Board Members. That is not illegal nor is it stealing, nor is it a crime. You sure are grasping at straws, it does not surprise me that you want to compare crime for crime as two crimes cancel each other. Well, no it's not even close, Trump was President when he committed his crimes against America. In his business life he was a notorious Cheat, his Trump Foundation was a scam, Trump University was a FRAUD, and I c o hold go on and one... You support a criminal, and I will bet when he is out of office he will be prosecuted for laundering Russian Mob money through his condo sales and other crimes. You are just a Trumpie, oh look over there, it's crooked Hilary..
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google