There may be loopholes in the constitution. But is it not often a willful disregard of the constitution causing a problem? When we had a prolonged government shutdown I posted my thought (the correctness of which I am still convinced of) that the people acting through the several States are the only ones who could shut down ongoing operations under existing laws. I based that on the non-existence in the constitution of an express power to shut down operations, on the tenth amendment and on the ninth that no right granted (and I read that to include express powers granted and powers implied thereunder) shall be construed to deny or disparage others reserved respectively to the states or to the people. When Senate leadership did not allow a bill passed by the House to be voted on, causing the shutdown, to me that seemed to be in violation of the oath of office, and not just a loophole in the constitution. Should this not have resulted in an immediate impeachment of the perpetrators?
The constitution provides for the Senate to have the sole power to try all impeachments. But it also requires that when sitting for that purpose they shall be on oath or affirmation. Does that not mean that they have to give an oath or affirmation specifically for the job of judging the facts relating to the impeachment? The constitution also provides for the Chief Justice to preside when the president is being tried. To me that language leaves no other conclusion than that the trial is indeed a trial according established trial law where each side is allowed to prove its case. I believe that it is against the constitution for the Senate leadership to make its own rules like a kangaroo court to unjustly slant any outcome in favor of the impeached. Facts can only be proven through direct evidence and through testimony by credible witnesses. Should a party deny the presentation of direct evidence or the appearance of witnesses is that a loophole in the constitution? I would venture NO. It is a shameful disregard of decency. And to me it would seem to be a case of negligence if the disadvantaged party or parties under the circumstances would not petition the Supreme Court or more specifically the Chief Justice presiding over the trial to issue subpoenas to assure a correct and fair outcome which the people of the United States can and should demand. I believe, though never imagined or done before, such a petition or motion could be attempted prior to the trial with notice to any opposition; and if unsuccessful could it not also be repeated prior to the begin of the trial? Sound good to me. Of course, when I posted something similar, a reply told me that I was incorrect. But sometimes, when something unusual is tried that others think it does not work, and it does work, in the technical field it's called an invention. It would be like a driver moving the steering wheel to keep a car properly in its lane. Do we have any to know what I mean? In life we have to learn not to accept blindly what someone wants to push on us vigorously.
= new reply since forum marked as read
