I'm assuming that there is not a goddamn thing in the US Constitution that addresses

[LuckyCharms]

the intentional slow-walking and blocking of the transition between two presidential administrations, thereby hamstringing national security and thereby letting an uncontrolled and fatal pandemic murder hundreds of thousands of United States citizens unabated.

Would that be correct?

[Budi]

8. Impeachment papers should be ready to file as soon as Georgia's Dem Senators are sworn in.

Impeach them swiftly & end the bs.

Barr, Pence, Trump all on the same damn day & within an hour walk them out the WH doors.
Enough is enough.

Well that'd be my scenario..

I don't know if the House needs the Senate approval to remove Pence or Barr.
Probably, & that's why we need Georgia. They wouldn't be sworn in until the 1st week of Jan, but that's still enough time to send Trump out the door without collecting on the future perks a President receives after leaving Office.

And he better not get a portrait hanging on the wall next to Barack Obama either. 🤬

[central scrutinizer]

13. Needs a 2/3 Senate vote to convict

But at least a vote could be forced

[Budi]

28. Thanks...it's an area I haven't dug into a lot. As to VP or AG removal

Appreciate it

[dware]

19. You haven't been paying attention here?

It has been pointed out numerous times that the House impeaches, the Senate convicts and removes, but for that to happen, a 2/3rd's majority of Senators are needed and there is zero chance of that happening.

[Budi]

33. Excuse me? No need to be condescending.

Info flys fast around here & as I stated above, It's my own personal preferred scenario.

I haven't dug into all that goes with removal VP, Ag...which is why I asked the question.

I realize some here know far more than I about politics & Law, & some speak more than they know, but Is it ok to present a question I'm not sure of, on DU?

Maybe I'll just ask someone else. Never mind.

[dware]

37. The Impeachment process has been explained here for well over a year,

including numerous times by myself and several others here just very recently.

Don't they teach Civics 101 in schools anymore?

[Budi]

38. Hey, did you read my post at all?

I don't need to hear anymore of your condescenion.

Welcome to IGNORE . 🙄

[dware]

39. i was just pointing out the obvious. nt

[11 Bravo]

41. Ummm, perhaps you should ...

[dware]

42. Perhaps I should,

but it bugs me when, despite this being discussed many, many times, people still don't know how our system works.

Anyways, have a great Thursday.

BTW, that was a great line in that movie, Warren Oates was a great actor.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

48. U.S. Constitution ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Article I, Section 2

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article I, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Article I, Section 5

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Note it says "two thirds of the members present." A majority of the Senate would be 51 members so it could take as few as 34 for conviction following impeachment by the House. That's not likely.

[onenote]

27. The Senate will not convict. It's a waste of time. Not going to happen no matter how many times

somebody suggests it on DU.

[Budi]

34. As I stated in my post. It would be my preferred scenario..

[onenote]

46. What would be that purpose?

There’s a fucking pandemic killing more than 1000 people a day. There is legislation yet to be enacted to provide financial relief to these in need. The government is on the verge of having its latest funding extension expire.

And folks think that starting a “symbolic” impeachment actions that against folks who will be out of office in two months would be well received by the public?

Fortunately Biden, Pelosi and Schumer are smart enough to know what a bad idea this is.

[uponit7771]

2. The president still can be impeached. At minimum we should only allow congress to remove IG's

... that were put in place by congress etc.

[BComplex]

11. That's a very important point. IG's should never be able to be "fired" by the president alone.

There needs to be a vote of at least the "big 8" or whatever it's called, where the chairmen of the judicial/intelligence committees house/senate get together.

[Demsrule86]

23. There is not point to impeachment. We can't convict.

[dware]

40. I don't know how many times this has to be said

for people to start understanding this.

[spanone]

3. ..or lying to the American people about a pandemic that ends up costing a quarter of a million lives

[exboyfil]

4. Congressional oversight including the ability to impeach

I know that is a joke, but that is supposed to be the way it works.

[Demsrule86]

24. In order to remove a president. The Senate must convict...and that will never happen so what

is the point?

[Sgent]

5. Our constitution needs a remake

on Article 2 dealing with the executive branch. John Woo's side won, and current jurisprudence says that Trump could fire everyone in the US government except for Article III judges and Congress -- the only thing that can check him is impeachment / removal.

Other countries have figured out a better system for a more devolved executive.

[JHB]

20. However, it's the wing nuts who have any organization for a constitutional "remake"

A second Constitutional Convention has been on the Koch brothers' wish list for decades, and they used their resources to promote the idea.

Any 2CC for the foreseeable future would quickly be high jacked by that faction to lock in the advantages of the super-wealthy. It would be a second Confederate constitution.

[unblock]

6. Constitutionally speaking, the new president isn't officially determined until congress meets in jan

To count and certify the electoral votes and address any challenges.

So the transitions we normally have are actually on a very aggressive timeframe from a constitutional perspective.

[Wounded Bear]

7. The Constitution was written in an era when it took weeks...

to get mail from one end of the country to the other. Roads were virtually non-existant and most interstate travel was done over water. Communications were a bit more problematic back then.

[BComplex]

15. This is at the heart of so much of what's wrong with the constitution today.

It is a totally genius document, for its time. But we're in a new world; one that our fore"fathers" could never have imagined.

It needs tweeking to prevent a fascist takeover. Trump was the SECOND attempt at a fascist takeover of our democracy. I don't want the third time to be the "charm".

[Voltaire2]

18. it was deeply flawed from the outset.

And guaranteed the civil war '4 score' years later.

[BComplex]

26. True that!

During this election season I've heard it said many times that allowing slavery from the start was our "original sin". That, and not bothering to think through that women were somehow capable of thinking enough so that they were also people, and should vote every bit as well as men. (WTF??)

You're right. It was terribly flawed from the outset.

[Sgent]

47. Maybe

IMHO without that compromise the country wouldn't have existed and would have been reabsorbed into GB in 1812. Its a very flawed document, its also the best one we could make and form a country.

[Voltaire2]

49. Best? Unprovable. It just was what we did.

The elevation of the constitutional into some sort of holy text, ‘the best possible’ or ‘the greatest’, is part of our national mythology and is part of the sickness that has lead us to where we are.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

10. The way we do the transition now started in 1963

There is nothing that is going to make Trump do anything other than, hopefully, pressure from the legislative branch to make sure that Biden and team are in place and up to speed when he takes office. Otherwise, there will be several days where we are seriously vulnerable. But there is no law in place or provision in the Constitution to make him.

[MineralMan]

12. There is nothing in the Constitution that addressed transition at all.

That's a relatively new phenomenon of Presidential change.

[marie999]

14. I wonder if any of the high ranking people Trump has fired are talking to Biden and his people?

[BComplex]

21. I sure hope so! n/t

[gratuitous]

16. I don't think the Constitution contemplated such a President

The idea that the president would put his own selfish interests ahead of the good of the country and the nation's security probably hadn't occurred to folks pre-Trump. There was a spate of reform legislation in the 1970s after Nixon was ousted to deal with some of the more egregious crimes of his administration. Most of those reforms have been repealed since then, but the 2020s could see a renewal of interest in reining in the Executive.

[BComplex]

29. And part of that, I think, is that even though the framers put "treason" as a crime punishable by

death, our country couldn't get their brains around what trump was doing with putin was treason! It sure as hell IS treason!!! And he should be TRIED for treason!

[mtnsnake]

32. The impeachment clause was supposed to cover presidents like him. We all saw how that worked out. nt

[Wednesdays]

36. The founders assumed the senate would

always be composed of men of honor.

[Steelrolled]

17. Joe said it is having no substantial effect

So I'm not bothered.

[Binkie The Clown]

22. 25th amendment. nt

[onenote]

30. Vice President Pence.

Checkmate.

[RobinA]

25. No, Because

our system does depend on a certain amount of agreement to play by the rules. I'm realizing that more and more now that we have somebody in there that refuses to follow the rules of basic civility.

[Kaleva]

31. You already knew there wasn't

[malaise]

35. I prefer the Parliamentary system

The election is called and you're the ex- Prime Minister. Pack and leave. There is way too much time between elections and departure in the US.