Pelosi: ‘No choice’ but to move forward with articles of impeachment
“Censure” is a condemnation by an official body that results because they believe that a public official has acted immorally. That particular word is used because the act goes beyond mere transgressions of law, and violates our most fundamental beliefs, as are expressed in the “Ten Commandments,” and the “Preamble to the Constitution.”
Looks like President Trump will be impeached, and smart money says, before Christmas – accompanied by very strong censure (which could include taking away, or closely monitoring, many of Trump’s responsibilities).
It is very possible to restrain and restrict Donald Trump. There’s already a strong federal law requiring that acts of Presidential power be reviewed and authorized within six months of implementation. They may be reviewed, and terminated instantly, at any time. Likewise, it is illegal to violate the rights to due process that are guaranteed to asylum seekers. No wall; no concentration camps at the Border. Just like that!
But, there’s an unwritten rule that says that you can’t impeach with removal in the last six months of office. So, accounting for the holidays, there’s only about 3-1/2 months for a Senate trial with all its particular, and unwavering requirements. That’s not realistic. But, it can simply be dispensed with.
The House of Representatives is the “Voice of the People,” and the people will have spoken. Trump won’t be able to blow anything up. Pence won’t be President. Trump will be voted out.
But, I’m left searching for a candidate who understands what an honor it would be to be President. I’m running out of time on that one too.
My understanding is that censure is nothing more than a strong reprimand. Nevertheless it is very rarely used. The House has never censured a President. The Senate censured one, Andrew Jackson. I don’t think there are any limitations placed on the authority or the actions of anyone censured. I have looked for references to the limitations that you lay out. Have you something you can point me to?
You are right. I didn’t make the connection well. Censure may not have any “legal force,” but it is a powerful social influence. I mention two cases in point. I mention them because they have solid legal foundation: First, it is a violation of federal law to deny due process to asylum seekers. Censure doesn’t focus on the technical infraction, but on the the immoral nature of the crime. Censure could actually make a difference in the only court that really counts, the public. It says that in their official capacity, Congress believes that Trump has committed the most serious crimes – the most important. Crimes that we all know are wrongs. And concerning the wall: all uses of Presidential power are subject to Congressional review within six months; and may be reviewed for approval at any time. Is it not possible that using “moral force” might turn the tide. Strong, official condemnation that will show what we really think – what we really believe. It’s drawing a line in the sand.
The fly in the ointment is that as long as Republicans control The Senate, they will show only absolute fealty to Trump and as we’ve seen, gladly give up their constitutional duty to be a check and balance on Trump.
As I mentioned above, though it may seem like the Democrats would have at least brought something to fruition, I think a censure would be wholly disregarded by Trump and the GOP and it would show Dems settling for a meaningless gesture.
The case that I think Dems should make if Repubs in The Senate do follow through on this cover-up of his crimes, is to maintain the moral high ground and hammer the Repubs for standing against justice, the Constitution and their duty to the American people in a quest to retain power.
Unfortunately, the symbolism of censure would be lost on Trump and the GOP, they would likely look at it as meaningless and a defeat for Democrats.
This is more of an all or nothing situation, either Democrats believe that Trump has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which requires impeachment, or they are unsure and thus shouldn’t be drawing up and voting on Articles of Impeachment.
The point in this impeachment needs to be Democrats conviction that Trump should be convicted and removed. Weakening or diluting that would only serve Trump and undercut themselves.