Thread: A question on the constitution

I am simply asking a question ,not trying to start a discourse. If the president of the U.S. is doing things that go against the majority of public opinion,and are unconstitutional,and the congress does nothing about it,what would be the next action? Is there anything such as a no confidence clause in the constitution? I'm asking because there are some very smart people who belong to this forum,and I'm sure at least one or two scholars

No, The Congress has to initiate an Impeachment and The Senate tries the case..

BUT

The is a clause in Article V of the Constitution called the Convention of the States that allows for the States themselves to Amend the Constitution to protect against an oppressive Federal Government

It has never been convened, but there is a push going on right now (CSG) looking for the 34 States needed to try it

Search - Article V Convention of the States for more info


So basically an Article V Convention could ratify an Amendment to the Constitution to allow different rules for Impeachment

That is really simplified, and has never been tested against the SCOTUS so in theory it is possible

Originally Posted by gssixgun

No, The Congress has to initiate an Impeachment and The Senate tries the case..

BUT

The is a clause in Article V of the Constitution called the Convention of the States that allows for the States themselves to Amend the Constitution to protect against an oppressive Federal Government

It has never been convened, but there is a push going on right now (CSG) looking for the 34 States needed to try it

Search - Article V Convention of the States for more info


So basically an Article V Convention could ratify an Amendment to the Constitution to allow different rules for Impeachment

That is really simplified, and has never been tested against the SCOTUS so in theory it is possible

That would be my dream come true.

The constitution isn't all that long and it explains how the government works in general.
Basically what is constitutional is up to the US Supreme Court to decide, so if somebody thinks the president is doing something unconstitutional they can file a lawsuit and pursue it all the way to the supreme court.
Of course, the party has to have a standing i.e. to have suffered some damage from those unconstitutional actions. Basically you can't sue on some abstract principle that doesn't affect you.
If the courts decide the president is ok that means it is ok whatever he does is in line with the constitution, if they decide he is not they can order him to stop.
The last time a lot of people disagreed with the supreme court's decision there was a civil war and the winning side amended the constitution so that the issue they fought over was settled explicitly.

The court system about Laws is being tested as of today

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-...ion-1424152796

There is an Injunction holding the President's last Executive order on Immigration, should be an interesting week

Exactly - the administration complied with the court order which is how the process is supposed to work.
Contrast that to the Alabama's chief supreme court justice ordering judges to ignore a federal's court ruling on gay marriage.

It'll go up the foodchain of the court system and will be resolved one way or another. That's the whole point of the constitution - it sets the general framework of government and how disputes should be resolved.

USA is set up as a representative democracy so generally the accountability is through that same representative system - if the representatives whose authority is to pursue a dispute don't do it the individual citizens are supposed to take issue with the representatives they have elected. The president is not elected by the people he is elected by the electoral college which represent the states in the federation.

Well this is all well and good but it seems to me that nobody is doing anything. I think there too chicken to impeach the first almost black scrotus. spelled incorrectly on purpose.
I agree with Col. West's opinion that letting those guys out of Gitmo is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at very least. Treason at best.

Well, that's the system that was set up over 200 years ago, and I'm pretty sure there have always been unhappy people.
When the system doesn't work there is one solution only - civil war and changing it - so the question is do you think that would make everything better? Do you have a better system in mind? I mean the one that works better when the guys you don't like are in charge, because unless you're the dictator there will always be times when you don't like the person in charge.

The real issue is that revolutions and tearing down is relatively easy compared to building something better afterwards.

I'm not sure about the issue you're referring but my thinking is that when you set up extrajudiciary process out of expediency or whatever it cuts both ways - the executive gets full control of what happens without interference from the judiciary.

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

I agree with Col. West's opinion that letting those guys out of Gitmo is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at very least. Treason at best.

Interesting. On the one hand you are talking about impeaching the president for doing something unconstitutional, yet at the same time you agree that it would be wrong NOT to continue unconstitutional actions such as imprisoning people without trial, habeas corpus or legal representation (nevermind the torture).

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

I agree with Col. West's opinion that letting those guys out of Gitmo is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at very least. Treason at best.

Except that those guys never should have BEEN in Gitmo in the first place. They should have been brought to trial in a US Court. If anything, aid and comfort is given to the enemy when the State disobeys or ignores the very Laws that were enacted to preserve the Union.