Isn't abdication of one's elected duty an impeachable offense?

[lonestarnot]

Just wondering.

[Solly Mack]

1. I believe sex is the only impeachable offense if you're a president.

Otherwise, it's a "youthful indiscretion" or a "mistake that God has forgiven" or "a private matter" or "I'm resigning to spend more time with my family", or "hiking the Appalachian Trail".


ETA: that I have no idea what this is about. I couldn't resist the easy joke.

I'm sorry. A little.

[NobodyHere]

2. That's kind of a slippery slope there.

For example should Obama be impeached for not enforcing federal drug laws in places such as Colorado?

[PoliticAverse]

7. He certainly could be as the Constitution specifically charges that the President...

shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

[stevenleser]

3. If you are referring to the senate not taking up debate on a SCOTUS pick, unfortuntely, no.

Not taking up a vote or a debate in itself is actually "action" by a legislative or judicial body.

Technically you can impeach someone for anything, but this wouldn't be within the realm of impeachable.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment. n/t

[lonestarnot]

6. recall then

[jberryhill]

12. And where is THAT in the Constitution?

The Constitution does not provide for recall of US senators.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*PL[%3A%230%20%20%0A

Burton v. United States

Edit: Ah, I see that is not a well-behaved link. In any event if you Google - recall of us senator - one of the most relevant links is a report by the Congressional Research Service which treats the subject.

In any event, no, there is no mechanism for "recall" of a US senator.

[jberryhill]

20. Perhaps if you read the case I referenced, you would have your answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_v._United_States

That case involved whether a convicted criminal could retain a Senate seat.

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . . . . Each House may . . . punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

You seem to believe that "doing their elected duty" in this situation, consists of consenting to a nominee. They have no duty to consent, otherwise there wouldn't be any mention of "consent" in the first place. Elsewhere in the thread, you have suggested they have a duty to hold hearings. The Constitution doesn't require them to hold hearings, and if the Senate rules don't require them to have hearings either (which it doesn't - that's up to the relevant committee), then they don't have to hold hearings and can simply say "no".

But I don't see where "recall then" absent appropriate punctuation, is any more likely to suggest a question or an imperative statement.

[PoliticAverse]

25. You might find this document interesting...

The Congressional Research Service has prepared a document discussing the possible methods for removing
members of Congress (.pdf)

Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office by the Congressional Research Service
http://tinyurl.com/kxevfrr
(tinyurl redirection service used to get around a problem in the way DU treats certain characters in URLs)

[jberryhill]

5. The Senate has no "duty" to consent to a nomination

Is that what you are on about?

[lonestarnot]

8. Even though the duty is outlined in the Constitution?

Yes on about it.

[jberryhill]

9. So you are saying

That the Senate is somehow obligated to give its consent to a nomination?

That's not what it says at all.

The Senate is not required to consent to a nomination, and it has been that way for a long time. Just ask Justice Bork.

[lonestarnot]

11. No I am not saying must consent to nomination, I'm saying must hold hearings for consideration of

nominee.

[jberryhill]

14. Where does the Constitution require they hold hearings?

[PoliticAverse]

15. Why? Nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. The Constitution says...

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,

Not consenting just means not voting to agree. Nothing about hearings or even requiring a vote.

This is no different from treaties for which there is no requirement to hold hearings or votes on.

Even if you disagree with this what's going to happen? Do you think the Supreme Court could force the Senate
to vote or seat a Supreme Court member that no vote was taken on?

[lonestarnot]

17. Thank you!

[Nye Bevan]

10. No.

The remedy is for the voters to choose not to re-elect someone if they believe that they have "abdicated their elected duty".

[lonestarnot]

19. I suppose.

[KansDem]

13. If that were true, then this man would have be impeached long ago...

As Commander in Chief, to sit idly by and do nothing while thousands of Americans are dying from a terrorist attack is "abdication of one's elected duty."

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. The US. House of Representatives, alone, has the power to impeach. Republicans control the House.

They are not going to make a Republican Senator, the first US Senator to be impeached since William Blount in 1797.

[Vinca]

21. If it is, we should impeach most of the House and Senate.

They've been doing jack squat for years on end here, raking in $174,000 plus perks or more as they go.

[patricia92243]

22. No impeachment for Senate, BUT they have not learned that this is the year of

anti-establishment. They have made Trump (inadvertently) their nominee. They are going to cement that decision by more establishment non-sense by not placing a supreme appointment.

They are truly a sickening bunch.

[Bucky]

23. Of course not. Grow up. In politics, you get the results you fight for only if you fight.

[Major Nikon]

24. The Republicans proved a blowjob is an impeachable offense