Yeah, I know you think I’m joking again or overreacting, but I think I’m onto something, and I’m not a government, civics, or law major; I’m just applying logic. Others can pitch in and provide the supporting references.
Let’s start with the impeachment process. I remember from when I took civics, half a century ago, that there was this thing called “The Separation of Powers.” Now I remember that it was designed so the no single branch of government could exercise complete authority over the governing function. The Senate has certain powers, and to be specific, neither the president nor the House can tell the Senate how to do those things. The president also has certain powers and neither the House nor the Senate can tell him how to execute those powers, and lastly and most significantly, the House has powers and limits to its powers as well. Specifically to this essay, the House can’t tell the president what to do, nor can they make binding demands upon him or his staff, nor can the House demand that the Senate conform to its wishes. If the House does either of those things then it has broken down the separation of powers, and elevated itself over the other two bodies.
Our democracy is one of the few that is designed this way, and I believe it is so designed because the Founding Fathers had seen the tyranny that can come from a unicameral government when the majority party views itself powerful enough to force its agenda on the lesser parties. We always hear how we revolted against King George and the monarchy. That’s a lie. It was the English Parliament that was inflicting the punishing taxes and regulations on us, because we were a colony and had little or no power to oppose them. Indeed, it might have got better if King George had had sufficient power to be an obstacle to the Parliament. Another example was when the Puritans took over the House of Commons and selected Oliver Cromwell to be what was essentially a dictator. Our founders knew that a democratically elected majority party in a unicameral system could be a tyrant, so they gave our system the division of powers.
And you say that is what impeachment is all about, checks and balances, right?
Checks and balances are somewhat common activities in the execution of government, activities such as vetoes, overriding a veto, or the SUPREME Court declaring some action as unconstitutional. That is the Supreme Court, not any single federal judge who decides he is suddenly omnipotent or a king in his own right.
Impeachment is not a check or balance. It is little used because it is an infringement on the separation of powers. To my understanding the president must commit a crime. The only way that one can be deemed to have committed a crime one is to have been convicted of a crime. All else is hearsay and rumor. After the president has been convicted then the House could impeach him if the crime is warranted as a “high crime.” A High Crime is usually something that endangers or damages the country.
The point is that the House is not a court and cannot find someone guilty of a crime. Just the same, Adam Schiff assembled a kangaroo court within his Intelligence Commit and, I guess ran a pseudo, TV trial which he thought would convince the idiots, lamebrains, and Soviets among us that indeed he had convicted Trump of a crime. The whole thing a total sham, and illegitimate with no standing in our democratic system, rather the Schiff hearings were indicative of a Nazi or Soviet mindset on governance and of individual rights, i.e. the House has absolute irrefutable power and individuals have no rights. Schiff’s findings were improper, and without standing, therefore so were Nadler’s findings, and therefore the whole impeachment was irregular and in complete violation of the impeachment process regulations, the Constitution, and, in my opinion, intentionally subversive to our government in that the House leaders knowingly and deliberately overstepped the division of powers. Furthermore, the House actions before the impeachment and at many points in the Trump presidency have overstepped the division of powers by harassing the President and calling upon his staff to appear before them for questioning on this or that.
The House has no power to second guess the executive branch or to summon officers of the president before them. By doing so, the House leaders have attempted and intended to subdue the president and the executive branch and make them submissive to the House. But with our separation of powers the president does not serve at the will of the House, but rather is elected by the people in accordance to Electoral College, which is again a system to balance power between the states of which this nation is a coalition, so that the more populace urban areas do not hold the rural areas hostage, nor the East or the West, North or South.
In short, the Democratic House has been attempting to force the executive branch to submit to its authority, an authority that exists only in the dreams of the House leadership.
This has never happened before so why now? I think we can trace this attempt to give the House the supreme powers like the House of Commons in Britain back to the 2016 election results. As we all recall, the Democrat minions, the uneducated output of our corrupted educational system, pushed back on the results using the argument that Hillary got more popular votes so she really won and the Electoral College is archaic and a travesty. So let’s get rid of the Electoral College and go with the popular vote. They declared Trump to be an illegitimate president.
In digression: aren’t you really, really glad, even you Democrats, that Hillary did not win? Now that the blinders have dropped from your eyes, don’t you have to admit that she was plain awful? And deep inside your scrambled progressive minds he is doing great.
Anyway, I actually think that the Democrat leadership began to struggle with the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College immediately after the 2016 election, but the mass media needed to convince the really stupid among the people to elect more Democrats. I mean, why not, Democrats are experts at making more and more people dependent on their handouts and special treatment legislation, and to supplement that they are complicit with letting our borders be overrun with more unskilled dependents. They know how to garner the popular vote.
The brilliant idea occurred to them that if the House were able to cross over the division of powers and make the executive branch powerless and submissive to them, and then also do the same to the Senate, then the Electoral College would be no longer of any consequence. Just like the House of Commons, they would hold all the power that counts.
Guess what, now Nanzi Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate until they submit to her demands regarding the trial of the president in the Senate. Again, House leadership has crossed the boundary of the division of powers. It is imperative that Mitch McConnell not submit to her demands. Furthermore, the citizens need to be alerted to the fact that a coup is being attempted, comically in the name of the Constitution and individual freedom, both of which have been violated right and left.
Good luck with that, given we have a press that is the propaganda arm of the fascist progressive movement, and has declared itself to be at war with anything that tries to preserve the USA as an independent nation. Currently President Trump is the main thing that stands in the way of international progressivism, and as I have said many times, international progressivism is Communism International rebranded after the fall of the Soviet states.