For over two years, I have written that the Democratic leadership had no intention to impeach Donald Trump. The problem has been that the voters gave the House back to the Democrats in part to pursue impeachment. With the House Judiciary Committee moving forward, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become more and more direct in reminding them that this is not a real effort. The most strident statements came out of a meeting yesterday with Pelosi not only blasting the Committee (and its Chair Jerry Nadler) but telling attendees “feel free to leak this.”
Pelosi criticized the Committee and made clear that impeachment is a pipe dream. It is a direct and surprising rebuke of Nadler and his allies. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, portrayed Pelosi as just focused on politics rather than principle: “Nadler is talking about law, Pelosi is talking about politics. Nadler is looking at high crimes and misdemeanors, and we are inundated with them in the Judiciary Committee. But Pelosi is looking at the political side of it.”
This is the problem in hyping impeachment to regain the House: some people actually believe you.
Feel free to take a leak.
“Leakers”: When Nadler leaks he has to stand and aim and hit the pot. When Pelosi leaks she has to sit and not get up while leaking. Transgender pee rooms are bad because the ales leave pee on the pot seat that gets left down by the females when they are done and not thinking right. Wiki leaks is a whole different matter.
Nadler ought to be voted out of office for using the same urinal that Pelosi uses. Pelosi is a stand up comedian but she needs to sit and pee not stand and drizzle the floor.
Let’s get something straight from the beginning, the Democratic Leadership does not make the decision to impeach, the States do by a Proportional Majority Consensus in the House! That means that it takes as few as 9 States to impeach anyone in Government, up to and including the President, and there is nothing the Parties can do to stop or impede those States from taking an immediate vote, without any preconditions, and immediately remanding the President over to the custody of the Senate, which causes a absence in the presidency which is immediately covered by the President of the Senate, for a trial for removal! Which the Republican Leadership has no say in the process of the trial for removal, nor do they have a vote in the removal which is also by State, with a 2/3 Majority Consensus of the States is necessary for removal, because the States have Equal Suffrage in the Senate, Not The Individual Senators, and it’s also not a Proportional Bipartisan Majority Consensus by Party!
Impeachment is not a political process or a political tool to deal with your political adversaries, it’s a tool of the Union to remove any corrupt or unqualified person from our government instantly without proving any cause, the vote is about the Union’s Authority to govern and have their intentions respected by everyone empowered to implement and manage their policies which they legislated and agreed to by their Majority Consensus.
Again this has nothing to do with Party Affiliation, which is wrought with corruption, obstruction, and conflicts of interest which impede all Legislative Processes!
How quick can the States impeach and remove any person? Faster than it takes for that person to report to the Senate where they are informed of the impeachment and trial for removal! Yes that’s faster than it would take for Trump to ride from the White House to the Capital Building and report to the Senate!
That’s republican Government in action!
“Impeachment is not a political process or a political tool to deal with your political adversaries, it’s a tool of the Union to remove any corrupt or unqualified person from our government instantly without proving any cause, the vote is about the Union’s Authority to govern and have their intentions respected by everyone empowered to implement and manage their policies which they legislated and agreed to by their Majority Consensus.”
*************************
“The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 65
Oh who to believe? Alexander Hamilton or our own resident buffoon on the workings of the Constitution? Amazing how one writer can be so consistently and utterly wrong.
I expected some totally ignorant out of context reading from you, you don’t even know how Hamilton is using the word “Party” in what you are quoting!
His use of Party means State, not Political Party, because only the States are Parties to the Constitution, only the States are assembled in Congress with the Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus, Proportional in the House and as Equals in the Senate!
Wake up and get your head out of the Hind parts of the Party System.
And since you like misquoting from the federalist Papers, let’s try Federalist #77, Hamilton
* We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is: Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?
Can you read and comprehend? I doubt it!
What a pathetic moron you are!
“Let’s get something straight from the beginning, the Democratic Leadership does not make the decision to impeach, the States do by a Proportional Majority Consensus in the House . . ..”
I believe you need to ditch your bizarre misreading of the Federalist, and just look at the constitution itself.
Well if you just look at the Constitution itself, as you suggest, then only the States are members of Congress, only the States are assembled in Congress, only the States have Suffrage to participate in Congress to reach Majority Consensus, Proportional in the House and as Equals in the Senate, and the Union of the States is the Supreme Legislative and Governing Authority.
The United States, in Congress assembled, the Union that makes our Country the United States of America!
The Parties are not Members of Congress, the Parties are not apportioned Representation in Congress, and the Parties have no Suffrage in Congress to participate or reach a Bipartisan Majority Consensus! Persons affiliated with Parties must participate through their State’s, equally, just like everyone else in their State.
Maybe you should try reading Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution, instead of relying on a distorted view of others provided by your Parties!
By the Way, our Country was established as a Confederated Republic, not Consolidated into a National Single Republic! And the States are Guaranteed that our form of Government must always be a Confederated Republic by Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution;
Article IV. Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
I’m beginning to think none of you people that post on this blog can read and comprehend the Constitution, or related documents that further elucidate the intentions of the Constitutional Convention when they established the Constitution!
Just as the Declaration of Independence is not law but more of a ‘mission statement’ the Federalist/anti Federalist Papers are more of an explanation of points of view also NOT law.
Likewise the pronouncements of Schiff and Nadler as with Schumer and Pelosi carry no weight on their own.
The Federalist Papers are not an explanation of points of view, and Definitely Not Law Either. written primarily by Madison, the father of the Constitution, it’s an analysis of Government systems dating back into antiquity and it contrast the different aspects of those Governing systems to clarify the choices made by the Constitutional Convention and why the Governing System established by the Convention is the most stable and superior form of Government that could be established.
By the way, the government the convention established in the Constitution is still far superior, and far more stable, than any form of Government possible, and I include the Party Governing System we call American Democracy!
Ben Franklin, 1787, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”
We had a Constitution once. It established a Republic of Independent States. The Senators were beholding to their State Governor or Legislature. In 1913 we began the move to democracy.
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”
– Alexander Tytler 1787
Some began a mvoement or regression to a self styled democracy which has never existed. But what they were after was a self styled socialist dictatorship. in 2016 we began a counter revolution to take it back and were successful. The effort goes on but one thing was and is true.
Democracy was rejected nine times as recorded in the Madison Journals or minutes of the two years it took to create The Constitution. The vote in 1889 was a 100% in favor of the finished product. A multi government which provided for some aspects of democracy on some levels and full blown res pubica on others.
if you want to understand it read it as a whole stand alone document of law leaving out nothing always including everything. Like the Christians’ Bible and other all encompassing works cherry picking never works as Money Is Free Speech proved
A Republic is not a democracy, enough said!
By the way because of Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, we must be a Republic and the States that form our Confederated Republic must also be Republics Themselves! That leaves out Party Governing and parliamentary style governments!
Article IV. Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
Impeachment should be used as the French used guillotines to rid the U.S. of treasonous justices and judges, the greatest portion of the judicial branch, who controvert and nullify the Constitution and adjudicate subjectively and corruptly for the purpose of furthering antithetical, anti-American, unconstitutional collectivist ideology.
The entire American welfare state, including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Dept.’s of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., is unconstitutional and exists solely because of the failure of the judicial branch to void all acts contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
__________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The US House of ill-repute with Pelosi as the Leading Lady and Jerold Nadler flashing all members
eeeeuuwwwww
Politico:
In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned lawmakers and aides with a swipe at Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee.
Pelosi criticized the panel’s handling of impeachment in harsh terms, complaining committee aides have advanced the push for ousting President Donald Trump far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands. Democrats simply don’t have the votes on the floor to impeach Trump, Pelosi said.
“And you can feel free to leak this,” Pelosi added, according to multiple people in the room. Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the meeting.
Feel free to leak this
Instead of impeaching the president they should strap him into a chair, force his eyes open and make him watch a continuous loop of Jerry Nadler eating. They could call it Clockwork Orange II.
Another reason why Pelosi should resign. She is extremely disliked by a great many members of her party, and her “up yer ass” attitude regarding impeachment does not play well with the Democratic base. She will be one of the major forces driving Trump’s 2020 run if she continues to piss off every thinking person in favor of some hidden agenda which the rank and file cannot now.
No, as posted below, the democrats did not run on impeachment in 2020, much as JT mistakenly thinks they did, and Pelosi said then that she didn’t see that happening unless they somehow thought they could get the Senate to vote to remove. Unlikely!
Chuck Aspinwall – the Progressive wing of the Arizona Democratic Party are threatening to censure Kyrsten Sinema because she is voting with the President 50% of the time.
That’s crazy.
I would like to be the first to establish a Purple ‘Centrist’ Party.
I would like our mascot to be a Lion.
On behalf of all that do not like either party, and find the notion of a 2 party system…rather annoying
Wally World – I am not sure what it takes to form a party in AZ
“She will be one of the major forces driving Trump’s 2020 run if she continues to piss off every thinking person in favor of some hidden agenda which the rank and file cannot (k)now.”
***************
Except that the actual “thinking person(s)” all know impeachment is a political loser from an electoral and power acquiring point of view. Dashing yourself on the rocks of the Senate may have some mindless heroic appeal to you, Chuck, but to most sentient beings, setting yourself up for a surefire catastrophic loss makes no sense. See Clinton impeachment and the disastrous House elections for the Republicans in 1998 and 2000. But hey, why bust your Joan of Arc bubble. Please carry on your Dimocrat Civil War.
Very disheartening. I guess they really y are people that are above the law. After all, that was proven with G.W. Bush, “Dick” Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, et al. All should be in jail right now for lying us into a war. Americans, Iraqis, and others are still dying as a result. The Vulcans are out earning honoraria in big numbers. Seems like getting away with murder to me. Looks like Trump will as well. C’est la Vie en America!
You’ve made three false statements in one paragraph. Because you aren’t worth a pitcher of warm spit.
Ah, an intellectual, I see. Excellent use of rhetoric and dialectic. You’re a real Cicero!
I’m sure your parents are proud!
RaPaR:
“Excellent use of rhetoric and dialectic. You’re a real Cicero!”
**************
True enough but TIA remains inviolably correct in his assessment of your foolish comment.
TIA, your agreeing with a racist who favors segregation.
So much for your “ideas”.
Moderator, we have a problem on aisle 1 of this thread!
Unless JT wants to be associated with ugly and stupid white racists, he should ban Squeaky.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/18/feel-free-to-leak-this-pelosi-blasts-judiciary-committee-over-impeachment-efforts/comment-page-1/#comment-1882661
Wait! You can’t call me a racist! Because you don’t know where I am!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Racism isn’t a “where”, it’s a “who.” If the shoe fits at least be true to your convictions even if they are repulsive and wear it.
Shirley, you must be joking?
Need to clarify that my prior post, beginning with S was for Anon1
Is she a racist? what’s the definition and where does it say that is the standard?
I wasnt aware that was a new “rule” here
I don’t think she’s racist, but I know there have been some other people think I am a racist. Ban me too then.
Mr Kurtz – Squeeky tells hard truths, that does make her a racist.
BS Paul
Anon1 – what did she say that Al Sharpton hasn’t said?
Her post this morning was blatantly ugly racism. If you don’t think so, you’re beyond dense.
I’d be surprised if she denied it.
when other people call racist, i just hear the French word, “enraciné” which literally means deep rooted.
in the old days, it was considered a virtue to have a sense of cultural continuity , as well as consanguinity, with one’s ancestors. some of us still do think that is a virtue.
of course as i learned in university, “all things are relative” and so you have no standing to moralistically judge to what extent someone else’s “enracination” is “bad” or “evil” or not. It’s all quite simply, a matter of cultural diversity!
Need we conform to your particular norms? How intolerant of you, sir! By what standard or authority do you sit in judgment?
Kurtz, no. Find the post and then tell me it’s not racist.
You don;t know what you are talking about.
you set yourself up as the judge. i ask you by what authority you presume to judge.
and by what standards
you say “No”
this is not dialogue
Kurtz, I have zero need to discuss what constitutes racism with you. Go talk to somebody else about your stupid ideas on this despicable behavior.
I have zero need either. I am just asking you who made you the judge.
You failed to demonstrate either by what authority you call somebody else racist or by what standards.
These are modest and valid questions.
Perhaps you just expect other people to adhere to your values, just because.
Anon, that’s not what diversity and tolerance is all about.
Such conversations are useful and necessary. Didn’t Holder ask us for an honest conversation?
I’ll give you an example of the difficulties nailing down both authority to judge “racism” and defining “Racism”
Israel Shahak was a Holocaust survivor, but something of an atheistic and secular Jewish Israeli, who wrote a book that documented various aspects of the Jewish religion he considered biased towards goys ie the nations, the non-jewish people of the world.
A lot of Jewish people hated the book and called him a self hating Jew, stuff like that, and mostly ignored him. But the book did not go unnoticed and some troubling issues raised in it may be worthy of debate. this pro-Jewish website thought so
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/israel-and-anti-gentile-traditions/
I am not a Jew so I will not be the one to decide who was right about that. I do not claim authority over them. I do exercise reason however and I can see the arguments of both sides. I seek amity with both sides. The contents of their religion which may be troubling to me, I can consider and have honest, peaceful debate about, if someone wishes to discuss with me intelligently, and many have.
But back to us. How can we decide what is legit and what is not? if we do not measure authority and defend our values in open dialogue?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Freedom of speech, thought, religion, belief, press, publication, assembly, socialization and every other conceivable natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment,,,
If America doesn’t have trash men and sewer technicians, it will have a grand mess.
If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot be free.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people…dictatorship does.
I would like to point out that nobody in my district sent anyone to the House to impeach Trump. And in CA there were some strange things going on with the voting that only JW will get to.
Paul c
The voters in your district: would they support ANY wannabe dictator? Would they support any candidate that supports democracy?
bill mcwilliams – the people in my district helped convince Jeffie Flake to retire.
Yep like %130 of the eligible voters in so Cal voted in the last election, and still no voter I.D. required.
Paul, strange things are going on with the voting in CA. Yup. More than 5 mil registered voters (1.5 mil in LA County alone) must now be remove from the state wide voter rolls. Calif politicians must have gone to the Chicago school of vote stealing, begun by Joseph Kennedy.
And after living in CA for about 63 years, I have now given CA politics and politicians the middle finger and moved out.
No, JT, Democrats did not win the House by promising to impeach Trump. Your premise is BS.
Get smart.
“If the Democrats are planning to impeach Trump if they win control of the House, they are doing a really great job of hiding it. Congressional Democrats aren’t talking about impeachment.
On Wednesday, for example, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a leading candidate for speaker of the House if Democrats win control, again all but ruled out an impeachment push, saying that Democrats would use congressional power to oversee the Trump administration and make sure the president does not interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment resolutions would likely be introduced, spent Wednesday pushing a bill he sponsored that would make it harder for Trump to fire Mueller. Nadler has suggested that the party will only pursue impeachment if they think they can get the 67 Senate votes they’d need to remove Trump from office — a very high bar, since that would mean something like 17 Senate Republicans would agree to vote out a Republican president.
And it’s not just Democratic leaders who aren’t talking about impeachment. As part of FiveThirtyEight’s project looking at what types of Democrats are doing well in primaries for Senate, House and governor this year, we looked at the campaign website for each of the 811 people who, as of Aug. 7, had appeared on the ballot in Democratic primaries for races with no Democratic incumbent. Only one candidate (Nate Kleinman, running for a House seat in New Jersey) featured a call for impeaching Trump on his website. And he lost his primary, getting just 9 percent of the vote in a four-way race.1 And the latest Cohen and Manafort developments haven’t seemed to bring a surge of calls for impeachment, either. For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the party’s nominee in a very Democratic-leaning House district in New York City and a new hero of the left wing of the Democratic Party, has sent out several tweets since the news about Cohen and Manafort — none of which mentioned impeachment….”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-are-talking-about-impeachment-way-more-than-democrats/
Well, on the bright side, the average Democratic voter, who is black, wears a head full of hair weave, has a couple of illegitimate kids, and likes to chimp out in fast food places, doesn’t care about any of this at all. And, the average white Democratic voter is way too busy emoting and thumping their chest to give a hoot about the truth, either. This will be forgotten by all of them with the next Rachel Maddow bombshell. Dud.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Moderator, we have a problem on aisle 1 of this thread!
Unless JT wants to be associated with ugly and stupid white racists, he should ban Squeaky.
Does Amendment FIrst protect her blatherings? Probably not if one disagrees with them. I call “fake news” and thus not constitutionally protected. Well, if they can, I can.
Damn. Something this twit and I finally agree upon. Good work, “haunt” of Turley Trolls.
I add more content to this site’s comments than most posters, and they are overwhelmingly far right wing to racist. If you find that troll like you’re too comfortable and only come here for confirmation, not lively debate.
You add more dribble to this site than anyone else. And, IIRC, you do not do much debating. You just splat out some stuff, like a partisan shill, and then call people names who don’t agree with you. Which, is why I seldom engage with you. It would be like trying to have a public conversation with Joseph Goebbels. Pointless. Old Joe will just spin out talking points and refuse to admit the Reality of anything. Any engagement is strictly for the benefit of others.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I reject the call for banning of Squeeky but applaud Anon1 for contributing to a lively conversation with a diversity of viewpoints. I welcome viewpoints which challenge my own.
Did you recently get let out of jail or a hospital or other institution? I ask this because we have not been subjected your obnoxious ignoramus racist comments for several months.
Techniques of distraction when the Party is a wasteland and barren of ideas.
Well, the ‘ideas’ they have – transgender bathrooms, continuous lawfare against dissidents of various sorts, petty violence, turning federal agencies on political opposition, brownshirt disruption of opposition gatherings, the continuing degradation of schooling at all levels, massive income sluicing to favored occupational guilds (e.g. teachers and social workers), massive income sluicing to mascot groups (e.g. illegal aliens), open borders, replacement of punishment with social work in the realm of criminal justice, racial quotas in every venue where culpability is assessed and penalties are assessed, racial quotas in every realm where benefits are distributed, contrived harassment of every category of person on their bogey list, vote fraud, ever more extensive manipulation of the medical sector (to correct the pathologies of their previous exercises in manipulation), and mass confiscation of privately owned firearms – all have one feature in common. They amount to warfare against disfavored groups. You’d be hard put to find one policy measure advocated which isn’t some sort of act of aggression.
TIA, you’re agreeing with a racist who posted in favor of segregation.
So much for your “ideas”.
Thanks for the ad hom. Been an education.
I don’t think you know latin.
Sounds very much like the Repugnant-cans & Conservatives….”massive income sluicing”? “Turning federal agencies on political opposition?” sounds exactly like the Greedy Ole Pricks!
In my mind, all politics starts with group forming dynamics, going back to the Greek Polis versus the next city over, and versus the barbarians beyond.
It is all group conflict, along a spectrum from total peace to total war, and all shades of grey in between. And it is multidimensional, as groups and interests form, reform, change, and overlap as much as they run contrary.
I think the Left grasps this. I think the Continental right grasped it. Clausewitz.
I don’t think the American conservatives grasp this. The purposes of politics are many. Among them, punishing enemies is at times a valid objective.
The American Left acts to punish its adversaries and try to harm them. That is to be expected. I am not clear on why the American socalled Right constantly fails to attack its adversaries in any effective way. At least Trump makes fun of people on Twitter. I guess that’s a start. However tame it may be.
kurtz, the advance of homo sapiens is based on the cooperation among larger and larger groups, not conflicts which are a hinderance. The modern world exemplifies this impulse and has yielded the longest period of peace and greatest success of our species. If you don’t recognize this you’re blind.
On American left and right, the US Senate over the last decade has featured straight party line voting by the GOP – Bush never faced, the greatest number of filibusters in our history, and the outright theft of a SC seat, Tell me about the lack of tribalism in the GOP.
perhaps this is a matter of perspective. war itself is a form of extreme cooperation, against adversaries. victors in wars often become the founders of the next generation of homo sapiens, and the losers’ bloodlines are extinguished.
i would agree with you that coooperation in its many forms it also a part of politics
it’s not all good or bad. embrace your Jungian Shadow anon1
PS not sure what you are referring to about SC. over my head that one. please elaborate.
The purposes of politics are many. Among them, punishing enemies is at times a valid objective.
Purpose? No. Does it function like that? Yes. Is punishing “enemies” ever a valid objective? That would depend on what they are enemies of. Are they enemies of “your” way, or are they enemies of the constitutional way? If the former does not equal the latter, then the former is never a valid reason. If they are equal, then punishing within constitutional means is a valid option.
The American Left acts to punish its adversaries and try to harm them. That is to be expected. I am not clear on why the American socalled Right constantly fails to attack its adversaries in any effective way.
Probably because they would no longer be able to claim being the “so called” Right. Bastiat describes this decision point:
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!
There is no path to political power in a Republic! You have a lot to say, that only you think is relevant, but please study the principles of republican Government, and the Federal Principle, Before you spout any more of your nonsense!
The Partisan Politics you are basing your opinions on is not based upon the assembly, distribution of Power through Suffrage, or function of a properly constituted Republic!
You can’t legislate or govern through conflicts of interest related to Party Affiliation!
There is no path to political power in a Republic!
Name one Republic in the history of ever that didn’t find a path to political power?
A republic by definition is distributed power, not concentrated power, and if you have a pathway to power it is no longer a republic, which is guaranteed each State in the Union by Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.
Article IV. Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
If you don’t bother to understand what you read, then stop making a fool of yourself!
Not only does our Constitution establish distributed power through the Apportionment of Representation and Suffrage, they did it in a way that is unalterable! The only changes to the distribution of power is due to population increases and migration, which is reassessed based upon the census every 10 years.
We don’t re-form our government every 2 year election cycle based upon a number of seats won by political parties, the distribution in our republic is by assigned seating as established by Article 1 of the Constitution! The President’s administration is not the Federal Government, and it doesn’t represent the Federal Government, in fact the Executive, including the President, doesn’t govern at all, nor does it lead or make policy!
Please learn how your Government is assembled, how power is distributed through the Apportionment of Suffrage, and how our Confederated Republic should function before you make your next ignorant comments.
You remind me of this Tyson quote: Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
The point is I’m not questioning your plan, or more importantly, the framer’s plan; you just don’t realize you’ve been punched in the mouth. The fact is a political path exists, has always existed and will always exist. What will it take to get back on the constitutional plan besides you trying to thump people over the head with the plan?
Your comment, and your analogy, make no sense what so ever! Where we are today has more to do with the vacuum created by the Civil War than anything else.
You need to do more than scratch the surface, or read the cliff notes of history.
Oof! Quite the list. I think I need a drink.