Where in the Cons ution or House rules is the requirement for a vote at this time, Darrin?
Lol Darrin. They aren’t going to do a formal vote for unless it’s for the actual impeachment vote.
Gotdayumm!!! This coming back round to Flynn territory
I bet Julie A had a deal with Erdogan
"If I get Trash to deliver Gulen to you, then you owe me $1M"
DJohn and Great Yap, both shills pretending to discuss politics, both just basically being spam bots for twitter and YT content providers.
When RGB croaks or quits, they’ll vote. Can’t let him nominate another SCJ.
Remember when you lost a $2000 bet in your own Flynn thread and then were too scared I’d collect your fantasy football winnings so you ran off and quit the league?!?! Gotdayumm you a !!!
vy65 true or false?
According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.
A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-cons utional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.
There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the cons utional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.
It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.
There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.
As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.
A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of do ents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.
The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.
The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).
Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...mpression=true
Correct
Nancy need to chop off her s and grow a pair of balls and vote
but but but it's not because she doesn't have the votes
would be helpful if he cited to the supreme court cases in question, or the laws in question, instead of just calling them "well established" and moving on.
and lol "quasi-cons utional"
Since it's the grocer and not a lawyer I'm going to go ahead and say lol without reading anything else.
is not fair
This analysis is incorrect, per some of the rulings we've had in recent cases. Any time one of these subpoenas has been challenged in court (ie: tax records), the House has made clear it's doing their oversight work in order to establish if legislation needs to be updated, which the courts, so far, have established to be proper.
We'll see if any of these rulings reach the SCOTUS and how they feel about it. The precedent (by the SCOTUS) so far is the give Congress deference.
This particular paragraph is incorrect also, as the government has already challenged some of these subpoenas in court (ie: again, tax records). So the 'process to appeal' is always there, regardless of a vote.
Judicial enforcement is actually tied to disputes between branches of Government that would significantly curb the power of one of the branches. One such case is, for example, the hiring of a special prosecutor to investigate alleged corruption cases on the Executive (Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654; Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361).
Another case is, for example, Congress attempting to overrule a DOJ determination, which they can only do by changing the laws. (Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714)
Should the Executive assert executive privilege on some demand, then that would probably trigger this issue. It's just difficult to do so for former employees and, as far as risk is concerned, it's probably much less risky to defy the executive (at worst you would lose your job) vs defying a subpoena (which could land you in jail).
Why is TSA bogging himself down with fake legal opinions from a grocer again when Dennison confessed to impeachable offenses on national television?
Appreciate the feedback, but what oversight would they be doing in order to establish if legislation needs to updated concerning foreign policy or impeachment?
"However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.
"customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose."
Trash's total corruption is not "customary"
"legislative purpose" includes checks on the (corrupt) Exec
your CULT leader....
CONFESSED
to the impeachable offense on live TV
now:
proceed to....
tap dance, juggle, do backflips, moondance, throw spaghetti on the walls, run flaming farm animals through fiery hoops,
parade costumed clowns with ballooons streaming out their assholes...
and after the smoke clears
your cult leader
already
CONFESSED
lolololololol
The media is stupidly reporting that the white house has begun
”an investigation”
into the crime that trump never committed- his “perfect” phone call and how it all unraveled...
idiots.
there is a proper name for this “investigation”
it is called- RETALIATION!
and is against the law.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)