Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- When political parties engage in all out war, the people they claim to serve are left in the cold


American legislators tend to get rather full of themselves, and media reports are inconsistent and erroneous. The US House of Representatives (Congress) can’t remove a president from office.

The term ‘impeachment’ as used in the US constitution refers to the process of Congress, having held hearings and examined evidence, recommending that charges against a government official, including the President, be sent to the Senate acting as a properly constituted court.

The Senate will consider the charges and evidence presented by Congress but may call more witnesses and additional evidence if it so desires. The entire Senate is the jury and eventually Senators will vote on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office. Removal from office requires a two-thirds majority vote of Senators present.

The impeachment process is troubling in many ways. Because the process is rarely used, there are no rules in place as to how impeachment proceedings are to be conducted.    

That seems unfair to anyone subjected to the impeachment process as a lack of rules precludes the protections of the principles of natural justice -- in effect in any civil or criminal proceeding -- such as full disclosure and disallowing hearsay evidence.

Congress, acting as a crown prosecutor, must be impartial in its deliberations. Each Member of the Congress must weigh allowable evidence on its merits and vote accordingly. There can be no “voting along (political) party lines” or the process is tainted. Either there is evidence to support articles of impeachment or there is not.

There is no grey area.

Impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors". There is no constitutional or legal definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Incidents of commission or omission can be considered.


“Impeached” is the equivalent of being “charged” for doing something inappropriate to the office of a public official or failing to take appropriate action. The premise is that every elected or appointed official is bound to act ethically and honestly in all matters. That is a very wide net open to broad interpretation.

Congress has voted to send two articles of impeachment for alleged Trump misdemeanors to the Senate. The Senate, acting as a court, will decide if removal from office is warranted. President Donald Trump will be on trial but so will Congress. Filing articles of impeachment without adequate evidence will not be taken lightly and can rebound on those voting in favour of impeachment.

The impeachment proceedings have consisted of almost three years of hype, hyperbole and high drama. The Senate trial, which will be presided over by the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, will be less dramatic and focused on the business at hand. When the charges have been heard, evidence reviewed and witnesses heard, the Senate will deliberate behind closed doors, vote and announce a verdict.

The Senate trial will seem pale in comparison to the impeachment process. Most people will not notice as they will be caught up in the parallel media trial as high drama sells newspapers and attracts TV viewers. The media will continue the impeachment process during the trial period because the media is as politically biased as the legislative arm of government. Neither side will take prisoners which is an affront to democracy.

The impeachment process has been sucking up all the oxygen in Congress for many months, leaving little time for legislative matters. That is not in the best interests of the American people and highlights the dangers of highly partisan politics.

When political parties engage in all out war, the people they claim to serve are left in the cold.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

PEATS: I am writing with a critical concern regarding the imminent closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic, a vital healthcare facility in our community

The following is a copy of a letter sent to me, which was sent to BC’s Minister of Health Adrian Dix. It is with regards to the impending closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic in Dawson Creek.   Dear Minister,   I am writing to you today with a critical concern regarding the imminent closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic, a vital healthcare facility in our community. The closure, scheduled for the summer of 2024, is a result of the utterly burdensome terms and conditions imposed by the bureaucratic Northern Health. As a result, Dawson Creek stands to lose four doctors who have made this city their home, and who wish to continue serving the people of our community.   The impending closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic is a significant blow to our city. Not only will it result in the loss of highly qualified and dedicated healthcare professionals, but it will also deprive thousands of Dawson Creek residents of access to their primary physicians. At a time when healthcare se

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Labels

Show more