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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...
Post a Comment
Read more

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...
1 comment
Read more

Labels

Show more