What do you think about a Constitutional Amendment requiring a 2/3's majority to even refer Articles of Impeachment?

CPO Nate S. — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 22:38:17 -0500

Background: In a response to Cpl William OHara from another post {https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/is-the-speaker-of-the-house-of-representatives-violating-the-6th-amendment-to-the-us-constitution?page=5&urlhash=5536912} Cpl William OHara might have an excellent idea.

Discussion: He has suggested that if it takes 2/3's to convict in the Senate, it should take 2/3's to levy (aka refer) charges from the House in the 1st place! In this way "bipartisanship" would naturally endorse for removal of the CoC even before the Senate takes up the case.

However, that would mean that the for the party in power to have a 2/3's major to pass would have to have 291-292 members from the same party to pull off what the DEMS just attempted to do. Any party in the simple majority could still do all the investigation in committee and open congressional hearings they want, but proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt for any POTUS would reduce the likelihood of partisan behaviors, without a REAL reach across the aisle, such as with Nixon.

While I am not a Clinton fan the bar for the impeachment of Clinton under Cpl William OHara's standard would have been higher about his is lying regarding Monica. Frankly that would have, I think, forced a Censure resolution by the Republican Congress vs Impeachment.

Here are some references that can be considered regarding Cpl William OHara's idea:

- https://www.infoplease.com/us/government/legislative-branch/composition-of-congress-by-political-party-1855-2017 {Note: It would seems that ONLY the 67th Congress (1921-1923) where 435 would have been able to meet the standard you suggest above.}

- https://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/

Some serious food for thought!

If such an amendment came to a floor debate and vote before 2026 and was approved by that same time that would make politics very interesting!!! If one looks at the current political landscape (https://www.270towin.com/) the nation's potential desire to make such an amendment part of the US Constitution could be achieved with the right strategy addressed to the American electorate.

I think both Democrats and Republicans could support this if the right language for such an Amendment were developed to include some other benchmarks!

I would think Cpl William OHara is onto something.

So, my question is this:

If such an Impeachment Threshold Amendment (ITA) were to be developed in a bipartisan manner would you PERSONALLY support it and would you ADVOCATE to your House and Senate members for it's immediate adoption to the US Constitution?

Also, if you respond to this post I'd also like to know what hazards such an amendment might post that the nation could not right now foresee and might be hamstrung by in the near future if put in place say, in the next five years.

As always, this topic could generate some very interesting feedback. Please always state your position and support it with facts vs emotion. While some emotion is fine, I am, as always looking for rational input positive or negative to the intent of this post.

Is the Speaker of the House of Representatives Violating the 6th Amendment to the US...

For the sake of clarity here is the wording to the 6th Amendment (aka 1st 10 Amendments otherwise known as - Bill of Rights): "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be...

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Feb 8 at 2020 10:40 PM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 22:40:17 -0500

I think that would be a good idea. Since it would take 2/3 to remove, and impeachment shouldn't be a matter of politics but protecting the constitution, I think that 's a grand idea.

Response by PO3 Phyllis Maynard made Feb 8 at 2020 10:43 PM

PO3 Phyllis Maynard — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 22:43:26 -0500

CPO Nate S. this is a mistake! This is the same as all of the previous reasons to shoot loopholes in the Constitution, personal gain. The US is not going to remain Republican majority for ever. Then what? Rewrite it to stop liberals who take advantage of the new impeachment amendment.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 8 at 2020 10:56 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 22:56:08 -0500

Look up tyranny of the majority.

Response by Samantha S. made Feb 8 at 2020 11:07 PM

Samantha S. — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 23:07:42 -0500

The Constitution of the United States is the most well thought out & brilliantly written document in history.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2020 12:01 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 00:01:47 -0500

I'm just fine with the way things are. The threshold in the Senate is very difficult to reach, but establishing charges should be worthy of investigation at a lower threshold.
I don't want to see what just happened happen again, but I think the consequences of this will make future scurillous accusers think twice about pulling this stunt again.

As an aside, I bet the Dem House caucus meetings this week were ON FIRE!
Nancy almost certainly said "I told you so".
Progressives turning on Nadler and Schiff for their bumbling.
Old Guard people on defense.
No wonder Nancy has been so salty all week.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 9 at 2020 12:15 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 00:15:41 -0500

A reasonable question. I wish I had a reasonable answer. The problem is that impeachment is not an issue of justice. It's political theater. I'm not sure how changing the type of majority needed to impeach would alter that reality.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2020 10:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 10:30:26 -0500

With the understanding that an impeachment is not a criminal process, I see the House as the grand jury and the Senate as the trial jury. Grand juries offer indictments based on compelling evidence of a crime. They investigate and offer evidence to the trial jury in the Senate.

Plus I know damn sure none of you would be saying this if Obama has been facing an impeachment