What’s incorrect about the idea that the President isn’t removable at the will of the super-majority of the legislature.
-
-
-
Governeur Morris something something
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Because otherwise, you still have the defense that the subpoenaed documents show the legitimate conduct of the government’s business.
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
"That argument *assumes* the documents will be incriminating!" Perfect.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Has anyone explained *why* it would be a bad thing to have frequent impeachments? Surely the founders didn't intend for the President to be untouchable. The House's two-year term means they will pay an immediate price if they actually engage in "Presidential harassment".
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I was not prepared for “the Nixon did nothing wrong” defense.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Excellent point!
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
POTUS is removable by the legislature at will. In principle, they don't need any justification at all to impeach, convict, and remove as long as they have the votes.
-
If anything, forcing the executive to comply with subpoenas weakens the power of the legislature because it means there's an expectation of judicial norms in this process.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.