or maybe better if presidents didn’t break the law?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Now do Democrats and their allowing Executive supremacy when they have been in control of both branches. This is a problem for BOTH parties, mainly because empowering the Executive overcomes the nearly-impossible barrier of the filibuster in the Senate.
End of conversation
-
-
-
If it became something more like a same-party no-confidence vote, I think that’d be a welcome change. Would certainly empower Congress/party at expense of presidency, which we could use a readjustment of at this moment, IMO.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Impeachment that results in removal? Or just a house vote?
-
I think we could use a few removals to keep POTUSes in check.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Weak presidents are fine, until you need a strong one.
-
We can always make him stronger as needed. Congress has proven capable of that much. Weakening the office as a general matter would do a world of good.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Rather, I would speculate that impeachment becomes more frequent as the presidency becomes stronger. The more important the prize, the more viciously we fight over it.
-
The more impeachment is invoked the more Presidents will stay within their guardrails.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.