A Modest Question

 

 "Can you impeach someone who is no longer in office?"

First, set aside that Trump has already been impeached by the House. Yes, technically, the question is - can he be convicted. 

My thoughts go to the Republicans and apparently at least one Democrat who will vote to acquit based on the logic that you can't impeach someone who is out of office. It would seem that as it stands there are reasonable though twisted legal arguments from both sides. The Constitution does not speak to this circumstance.

"Republican senators and some legal scholars have said that Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate cannot proceed now that he is once again a private citizen. But many scholars have said that Trump's return to private life poses no impediment to an impeachment trial." -Yahoo News

So, here is my question.

I believe we have these institutions we called courts. And I believe, some of them are courts of appeal. And one of them, the Supreme one, makes all of its rulings based on what they interpret the constitution to allow or not.

Why not ask first before tying up the Senate with a potentially non-event?

Before going through all the machinations of a trial and with this glaring loophole for those senators seeking to duck and cover. Why not ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not a former President can indeed be tried in the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office but now out of office.

This gives the Senate time to consider the Biden appointments. And, it means, if the court says yes, the big dodge will be removed from any cowardly senator who wants to vote none of the above. If they say no, then move on, the court has spoken. Let's get those vaccines in arms, fix the bridges and save the polar bears.

Really, why not just ask first?

Voting for a Dead Weasel

I heard it again today, from a fine, well-intentioned, solid blue voter.

"Maybe Biden will step aside and we can get a truly progressive ticket. 

Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris would be perfect."

No! No!! Hell No!!!

Stay focused people. There isn't a cancer on the Presidency, the president is the cancer. Enough of this longing for a brighter, bluer choice in 2020. It's Blue No Matter Who. Let me put it another way.

If the democrats nominate a dead weasel, you are going to vote for the dead weasel. Stop! No more whining, no more maybes, ifs or perhaps. Vote for the Dead Weasel.

And furthermore, it is your duty, your responsibility to get your friends, family and neighbors who might be leaning towards staying home in November, you must get them to the polls or get them an absentee ballot. Drive them to the voting booth. Stop by with a fresh pie and ask directly if they have mailed in their ballot.

In 2024 we can fight again for the hearts and minds of the country. In 2020, we have to kill the vile, orange insanity that is destroying this nation. Vote for the Dead Weasel.

I will remind loyal readers, I voted for George McGovern with my first vote in 1972. Since then I have voted third party each and every election. I am committed to progressive liberal values. But we have to stop the bleeding before we give the country a new heart.

Year-End Numbers to Ponder

These are vote totals in past presidential elections (slightly rounded).

Obama (2008)                      69,499,000
Obama (2012)                      65,916,000
Clinton (2016)                       65,845,000
Trump (2016)                       62,980,000
Bush (2004)                          62,041,000
Romney (2012)                     60,934,000
McCain (2008)                      59,948,000
Kerry (2004)                          59,028,000
Reagan (1984)                      54,455,000
Gore (2000)                           51,000,000
Bush (2000)                          50,456,000
Bush (1988)                          48,886,000
Clinton (1996)                      47,402,000
Nixon (1972)                         46,740,000
Clinton (1992)                      44,910,000
Reagan (1980)                      43,643,000

Now I'm a big number questioning guy, which means I don't trust numbers unless I can see them, know who offers them to me, and then inquire into the interpretation of numbers by nearly anyone and everyone. That being said, consider my thoughts on these numbers.

1. (2016) It is NOT true that if Hillary had gotten as many votes as Obama, she would have won. If all those votes were not in key states, she still loses. Then again, if her margin in California (2+ million) was redistributed to swing states, she would have won an electoral college landslide.
2. (2012) Obama got 3.5M less votes than he got in 2008. Same election, Romney got a million more than McCain received in 2008, but even with that 4.5 million vote swing, the end result was the same.
3. (1984) The voters really liked Reagan, look how far out of an orderly progression is his total that year. The same can be said of Nixon in 1972.
4. Voter totals go up year over year over year, with only minor exceptions. That math is based on birth rate versus death rate and has nothing to do with who is running for office or if the voters care, again with minor exceptions like 2008 & 1984.
5. As long as we have the electoral college; in any scenario with competitive race for the presidency, it will be more important where you get your votes, not how many you get.

Happy Election 2016 America