The speaker of the house should be arrested, impeached, shamed and other things

[mfcorey1]

for what is happening on the floor of the house. A rote stand in for John Boehner refuses to consider any request by Democrats to go to conference.

cspan.org

[Ranchemp.]

1. Arrested? For what?

Shamed? Absolutely, but what crime can he be arrested for?

[mfcorey1]

4. For impersonating a lawmaker!!!

[pinboy3niner]

6. *snort*

[Ranchemp.]

7. LOL.

Yeah, there is that.

[meow2u3]

22. No. For impersonating an American

Along with the teabagger traitors who had no intention of keeping their oaths of office.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

53. Good one!

[DJ13]

9. Public intoxication

Just give him a Breathilizer test when he gets back from lunch.

[Ranchemp.]

10. That could be said of all congress.

[shraby]

11. Ongoing attempted extortion. That's against the law.

[Ranchemp.]

14. Good luck finding any prosecutor that'll file that charge.

[NutmegYankee]

34. Give him a trial by water.

He's so full of hot air he'd have to float.

[onenote]

2. Well, we had a couple of days without this kind of nonsense

But I suppose it was too much to ask that it stop completely.

For the record: The speaker is going to be arrested. End of discussion.

[B Calm]

18. When will they arrest him? today or tomorrow?

[NuclearDem]

3. Oh, not another one of these damn threads.

[mfcorey1]

5. Yep! Another one and another one until the hostage takers come to their senses!!

[onenote]

8. Because demanding the impossible and unconstitutional makes sense to you?

[mfcorey1]

13. What is unconstitutional about asking for an end to the Republican shutdown of government?

[onenote]

17. Seems like you are asking for more than that.

You're asking for the speaker to be arrested but haven't stated any crime for which he could be arrested.
You're asking that he be impeached which is impossible because the republicans control the House and its unconstitutional -- at least that was the conclusion of the Senate the one and only time an attempt was made to impeach a sitting member of congress.

But you're right that there is nothing unconstitutional about "asking" for an end to the shutdown. Indeed, its not unconstitutional to demand it. Its just unconstitutional to try to compel it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Sedition...

they have planned this for over a year. That's the conspiracy part.

[onenote]

28. where's the force?

Where is the "overthrow, put down, or destroy" the government? The repubs in the House are a part of the government.

If members of Congress and/or members of the same political party getting together to pursue a legislative objective amounted to sedition, then every member of Congress in both parties, and most political organizations would be guilty of sedition. Remember, the entire Democratic Senate delegation has, on two occasions, unanimously voted against an increase in the debt ceiling and Bill Clinton vetoed such a bill. That doesn't mean that those decisions are equivalent to what the repubs are doing. But the difference is not that one is illegal and one isn't. Its that while what the Democrats have done in the past are what repubs are doing today are both legal, what the repubs are doing today is bad policy, while what the Democrats did was good policy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. where does it say it MUST involve "force"

it does however say "conspiracy to" impede the business of the government.


....I believe there is ample evidence of that...

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Here you go:

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

You can't arrest any congressperson for voting, or not voting, the way you want them to vote.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. "or by force"

there's a comma there...

"or to destroy by force the Government of the United States"


that OR makes a big difference...

[onenote]

32. No one is trying to "destroy the government by force

Nor is there any attempt to "overthrow" the government or "put down" the government. Speech that is critical of the government in general or of particular laws and policies of the government is constitutionally protected speech. And keep in mind the following -- while the Constitution empowers Congress to a number of things, it requires Congress to do very little. Congress can create departments and agencies and it can abolish them. It can fund programs or defund them. It can pass laws and it can amend or repeal them. Keep in mind also that the House has passed a bill to fund the government and the Senate has passed a bill to fund the government but the text of those two laws differ so there is no law funding the government. The fact that you and I and the President may prefer the law funding the government that the Senate passed doesn't make the House's decision not to pass that law somehow illegal just as it wasn't illegal when President Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution that had been passed by both the House and the Senate.

Finally, and I've noted this before and have yet to get a response from those crying sedition: let's imagine some fantasy world where the Speaker is arrested for not calling a vote (and by the way if a vote is called and its not unanimous are all those who voted no guilty of a crime? Are you saying that the executive branch and judicial branch, acting in tandem, can compel unanimity on votes?), then what? The repubs still have the numbers to select the new speaker and they still have the numbers to defeat any bill they want to defeat.

What the repubs are doing is many things: stupid, bad policy, economically unsound. But what it isn't is illegal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Not by force

you think our Founding Fathers thought the ONLY way to destroy a govt was through means of force? Think they never had bloodless coups throughout history?

This is a coup attempt....make no mistake about that! Where you fail to recognize are WHO funds that coup and their reasons...(the Koch bros) who were are a part of the conspiracy to do so. Always, always follow the money...

[NuclearDem]

12. We didn't have the guts to arrest the war criminals and banksters

And you really think the Beltway Cabal is going to arrest one of its own?

Maybe if Boehner was caught with weed or was black.

[mfcorey1]

15. I see you want to take this off the topic, so I am done with answering you. Done! Bait

someone else.

[NuclearDem]

16. Off topic? You're talking about arresting a politician,

and I just said that's not going to happen.

How in the hell is that off topic?

[Ranchemp.]

36. Thank you for being another sane voice of reason in this sea of crazy talk.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

66. It's a discussion board. Deal with it.

[NuclearDem]

67. Speak of the devil.

[dgibby]

19. Right, because having Eric Cantor in that position would be so much better. NOT! n/t

[B Calm]

21. I can't stomach the snobby ass wipe!

[dgibby]

24. Neither can I,

but those old Confederates in Richmond (which doesn't even know the rest of us exist) sure do love him.

I'm hoping that he and Ted Cruz will get involved in a political knife fight and do each other in, but Dems don't have that kind of luck.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. He would be arrested too...Sedition...Conspiracy to stand in the way of the operation of Govt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. The Speaker cannot be impeached

and for what?

[Ranchemp.]

38. Thank you Nadin for being another sane voice of reason in this sea of crazy talk.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. The speaker can resign I suppose?

what will they put in his place? A fish might be more effective?

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. he can resign

He can face a revolt and voted out. This has not happened ever in the middle of a term. Can't be impeached

[meow2u3]

23. Correction: Every TP puke should be expelled from the House

on charges of seditious conspiracy (the ongoing coup attempt), advocating the overthrow of government, inciting insurrection, and other subversive activities. I didn't add treason because there's insufficient evidence that they're going to war against the US.

The obstructionism is nothing more than seditious and insurrectionist. They're rebelling against democracy itself.

[onenote]

25. Since it takes a 2/3 vote to expel someone from Congress

how exactly do you propose to bring your great idea to fruition? (And by "great idea" I really mean pointless rant).

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

33. Fuck that. We, the people, have the obligation to kick the Congressassholes out.

Recall! Explusion!

PRISON!

[onenote]

37. uhh. We the people don't get to ignore the Constitution

Members of Congress are not subject to recall. They are subject to expulsion by a 2/3 vote of the House (for members of the House) or 2/3 vote of the Senate (for Senators).

Still looking for an answer as to how screaming Recall! Expulsion! PRISON! is anything more than a pointless rant.

[Ranchemp.]

42. I understand the frustation of people here,

but I wish they would learn what can and cannot be legally done, things like Recall! Expulsion! PRISON! make us look just as foolish as the other side.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

45. You're lucky I said prison instead of death.

Or people would think I'm nuts....

But alas, I know that I speak of dreams... if I had a wish, no insane Republicans will be allowed in politics in general.

[Ranchemp.]

47. I'm not lucky about anything,

you and your cohorts calling for the arrest of repigs for sedition and treason are the ones making our side look just as foolish as the other side.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

49. What the Republicans are doing is illegal...

It's called endangerment of welfare to the people of the United States.
And also called extortion. Both illegal.

[Ranchemp.]

52. No, it's not, despite all your wishful thinking,

they're acting within the boundaries of the constitution and cannot be arrested or prosecuted for what they're doing.

Here, why don't you test out your theory, go to any lawyer/prosecutor in the country and float your idea to them and then see how fast you get laughed out of their office.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

54. Fine. See you later.

I guess you're not sane enough to look at the future..

The theory is sound, and you aren't even discussing rationally - you're just dismissing it.

[Ranchemp.]

56. I'm dismissing a foolish idea that has no merit whatsoever.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

59. It has merit, you just don't realize it yet.

I said see you later.

End of communication. End of discussion.

[Ranchemp.]

61. Ok, you just keep believing that, meanwhile back in the land of reality...........

[Ranchemp.]

39. Please, Please learn the constitution

there is no recall provisions in the constitution for the recall of fed. politicians.

[Decaffeinated]

41. Ironic user name is ironic...

[Ranchemp.]

43. I just caught that.

Not very wisdom-like.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

46. Sorry you don't think I'm wise...

but I see of the future, and there WILL be a provision created that will enable a recall of a federal officer.

It's insane that there is no way to correct for mistakes that the People have made by correcting it by either voting 2 or 6 years later.

[Ranchemp.]

50. Yeah, ok.

Please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen and I would oppose such an amendment to the constitution.
Take a moment and think about what would happen if that were added to the constitution, there would be constant recalls of politicians we or they didn't like, you think govt. is paralyzed now?
This is nothing compared to what you would like to see happen.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

51. The recall provision can be narrowed down as 'unbecoming of an officer of the Congress'

And it can be narrowly interpreted as not doing their jobs as required by the people of the United States.

If they are not doing their jobs, that is becoming of an officer of the Congress.. 178 days vacation? That's a recall waiting to happen because we're paying him to do jackshit.

[Ranchemp.]

55. Ain't gonna happen despite your "dreams".

Democrats and Republicans alike would oppose such an amendment, and rightly so.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

57. No they won't.

And they won't have a choice in this matter... the future is important. Today is too late, but the future matters.

See you later.

[Ranchemp.]

62. I wish I could live in your fantasy world, but, unlike you,

I live in the real world.

[onenote]

68. Of course they will oppose it and of course they will have a choice

[jsr]

35. Where are the truckers?

[joeglow3]

40. It saddens me to see how many members here don't know basic civics.

[Ranchemp.]

44. Whatever happened to teaching basic Civics in school?

Or Govt. for that matter?

[FreeJoe]

48. Sure, because the proper response to idiot political behavior should be arrest

That works so well in countries like North Korea.

Why don't we stick to fighting this one in the court of public opinion and winning at the ballot box? Given recent polling, it looks like that strategy might be very effective. If the President tried some extra-legal stunt like arresting the opposition leader, one of two terrible things would happen. He would (correctly) be seen as dangerously overreaching and Democrats would get their asses handed to them in the next election cycle or he would succeed and democracy in this country would be forever damaged.

We will survive this idiotic shutdown crap. As in the '90s, we will benefit from it electorally because voters aren't as stupid as the GOP things. Responding by arresting our political opponents is something I prefer not to see suggested Democrats.

[Ranchemp.]

60. He would also likely be impeached by both Dems and Repubs.

No, you're correct, we're winning in the court of public opinion and all this crazy talk of arresting for sedition or treason is making us look just as bad as the other side.
Thanks for being another voice of reason in this sea of crazy talk.

[on point]

64. NO!! I don't support him at all but he has not committed any crime

Impeachment is for cause, not for popularity. Do not play the pukes game