At what point does voting in government become illegal?

[yoink 321]

As expected the first vote is proceeding directly along party lines which depresses the hell out of me.

 

But it got me thinking - if there was hypothetically a situation that was so blatent, so obviously and provably illegal that impeachment hearings proceeded and one party simply refused to vote for it, is there any recourse? Are those officials putting their party ahead of the law and the country? 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by yoink

[billvon 2,384]

7 minutes ago, yoink said:

As expected the first vote is proceeding directly along party lines which depresses the hell out of me.

 

But it got me thinking - if there was hypothetically a situation that was so blatent, so obviously and provably illegal that impeachment hearings proceeded and one party simply refused to vote for it, is there any recourse? Are those officials putting their party ahead of the law and the country? 

Of course.  They are doing that now.  In Nixon's days a lot of republicans cared more about the US Constitution and upholding the law; nowadays their only objective is loyalty to their leader.

[gowlerk 1,903]

25 minutes ago, yoink said:

But it got me thinking - if there was hypothetically a situation that was so blatent, so obviously and provably illegal that impeachment hearings proceeded and one party simply refused to vote for it, is there any recourse? Are those officials putting their party ahead of the law and the country? 

Of course there is recourse, it's called an election.

[yoink 321]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Of course there is recourse, it's called an election.

Fine.

Lets say that in this hypothetical situation the event happens on the first day of a presidency and we'd rather not wait 4 years for an election.

 

What I'm trying to understand is do the elected officials have any driving responsibility to vote according to evidence presented? Do they even have to consider it? Is there any consequence for someone who didn't turn up to a hearing, never looked at or listened to evidence and simply voted the way their party tells them to?

 

I suspect there isn't, and when you realize that it kind of makes the entire process not only utterly pointless, but also completely self-serving. That should be the news story, not the inevitable failed impeachment process.

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, yoink said:

Fine.

Lets say that in this hypothetical situation the event happens on the first day of a presidency and we'd rather not wait 4 years for an election.

 

What I'm trying to understand is do the elected officials have any driving responsibility to vote according to evidence presented? Do they even have to consider it? Is there any consequence for someone who didn't turn up to a hearing, never looked at or listened to evidence and simply voted the way their party tells them to?

 

I suspect there isn't, and when you realize that it kind of makes the entire process not only utterly pointless, but also completely self-serving. That should be the news story, not the inevitable failed impeachment process.

Well, as far as I know impeachment is a political matter not a legal matter. So no, Congress is not a court and it is not a jury. BTW, Congress is elected on a two year cycle not a 4 year cycle. Representatives answer to their constituents. They may decide to go home and talk to the people before deciding, but they certainly don't have to. It's more like the House of Commons deciding if the PM still has the confidence of the majority of members.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Congress is elected on a two year cycle 

Hi Ken,

I was taught the Congress includes the Senate.  I think you mean the House of Reps.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,903]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

I was taught the Congress includes the Senate.  I think you mean the House of Reps.

Jerry Baumchen

Thanks Jerry, you are of course correct.

[kallend 1,621]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Of course.  They are doing that now.  In Nixon's days a lot of republicans cared more about the US Constitution and upholding the law; nowadays their only objective is loyalty to their leader.

The BEST government money can buy.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Well, as far as I know impeachment is a political matter not a legal matter. So no, Congress is not a court and it is not a jury. BTW, Congress is elected on a two year cycle not a 4 year cycle. Representatives answer to their constituents. They may decide to go home and talk to the people before deciding, but they certainly don't have to. It's more like the House of Commons deciding if the PM still has the confidence of the majority of members.

Shouldn't you be ice fishing for Pickerel and not meddling in foreign elections? This is another posit that does not need over parsing; yoink is absolutely right. The mirage of a representative democracy in America, as it is provided under our Constitution, is being exposed to be the dry patch of sand it truly is.

We allow our elected representatives to value their value to us in their own reelection. And for the most part we do it without a whimper. At least half of our US Senators are paralyzed with fear over offending Dear Leader and losing his base in the coming election. So yes, yoink has it spot on. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by JoeWeber

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/31/2019 at 12:59 PM, kallend said:

The BEST government money can buy.

See . . . we can agree here - Soros should have spent more money!

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/31/2019 at 11:00 AM, yoink said:

. . . . . . . . .first day of a presidency and we'd rather not wait 4 years for an election.

 

 

That's pretty much what happened.