President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching (by a simple majority vote), while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments (Convictions by 2/3 vote). The process is the only way a president can be removed from office and is not about punishment. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. Punishment would be meted out after removal by trial in a criminal court. In 1993 the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings. During the Nixon saga Gerald Ford was asked what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanor’s” to which he answered, “Whatever the party in control of the house says they are.”

The bigger question is whether a sitting president can be indicted. Conventional wisdom says “no” but the constitution is notably quiet on this subject. There is nothing with in it preventing indicting a siting president but nothing suggesting it can be done. It only addresses removing a president. The silence about addressing the criminal aspect of a crime has always been thought to imply that indictment should occur after removal. If Mueller decides to bypass the house and directly indict the president it will set off a political maelstrom which will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. The house will be forced to review the charges in detail no doubt claiming it is a witch-hunt. If Mueller presents the evidence to the house they will not bring up a vote to impeach unless the charges are very serious and supported by compelling proof. Public opinion will play a significant but not overwhelming factor in their decision.

Thank you for your kind welcome. I may disagree with what you say, but you will never see me assailing your character and I will ignore it if someone assails mine. I recall when a member of the press once felt they had Condelezza Rice backed into a corner over the fact she was adamant supporter of abortion and President Bushes was staunchly opposed to it. She was asked how she could possibly work for someone whose views were so diametrically opposed to hers. Without losing a step she replied "Young man, reasonable people can disagree". The reporter was left speechless, apparently unaware of the possibility of something called reasonable discourse and debate. In our country political parties have become so polarized that both Obama now and Bush before him were reduced to daemonic demons intent upon the total annihilation of the USA. I have heard Bush I, Clinton and W speak at conventions after their terms. It was apparent that despite their different beliefs they were just men overwhelmed by the jobs they had won, who despite their limitations tried to do the best they could for the country. In England the party out of power is referred to as the loyal opposition whose duty it is to insure the ruling party doesn't stray too far from the principles of the nation. It is only my opinion but perhaps we could do better spending a little more time discovering what in the opposition parties ideas might be worth a try and spending less time dismissing all there ideas as worthless, discovering new insulting names to call them and creating horrific conspiracies to accuse them of. In this both sides are equally culpable and therefore equally responsible for the terrible stagnation we find ourselves mired down in.

And then again maybe not.

Well Said

As to gun control, I have a right to keep and bear arms. I don’t need a reason or an explanation as to why I choose to keep firearms. There is no justification for the second amendment required. It is an individual right and that’s it. Those who are opposed to guns at times make some compelling and cogent arguments in support of their point of view. There has been some statistical research demonstrating severely restricting or banning guns could indeed reduce some violent crimes. But none of that changes the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to legislation or compelling research or sincere social movements or heartfelt tears or divisive name calling. I can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment, which is process available to all citizens. Find enough kindred spirits to create an amendment and place it into the constitution and I will comply. If not, stop complaining about gun control. Most research has shown the limited measures acceptable within the framework of the second amendment will not have much of an impact

I am sorry but I must disagree. If you wish to define night as day or left as right you are quite with in your rights to do. But in the broader context of established definition past liberals are not today's conservatives and today's democrats are not liberals…necessarily. Today’s democrats are more progressive than liberal and allowing anyone bastardize the word liberal is a big part of the problem!

Liberalism (and Liberal) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views and program such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment opposing the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. John Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract.

The Progressive Movement began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew into a political movement, Progressives were well educated city dwellers who believed that the problems facing the nation were such that only through government intervention could they be solved. They believe in the power of government to do good and were influenced somewhat by Marxist dogma. These policies morphed over time but usually involve some form of government intervention in business, healthcare, education and to varing degrees all aspects of society. Ultimately there belief would be better described as socialist rather than Marxist but even that doesn’t always hold true.

Liberal is not the same as Marxist which is not the same as Progressive which not the same as Socialist which is not the same as Communist which is not the same as Marxist. Liberals can be conservative and Conservatives can be Marxists. Don’t confuse political Ideology with social or economic ideology

Its not liberals that wish to ban all guns it is progressives. Our founding fathers were liberals and they penned the second amendment!

And when it was created the second amendment wasn't an individual right. The Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. The Supreme Court upheld this in 1833. After the civil war it became apparent that the states were just a likely to abuse these rights as were the feds (would there have even been civil war if 4 million blacks had the right to to keep and bear arms!?!) The fourteenth amendment was in part constructed to remedy this providing a method whereby these rights could be incorporated into individual rights forever barring both the state and federal government from infringing upon them. The process of incorporation of individual rights did not start in earnest until the 1920’s but then progressed rapidly. By 1970 all but 6 of the 29 rights outlined in the bill of rights had been incorporated as individual rights. In 2010 the Supreme Court in deciding McDonald v. City of Chicago fully incorporated the second amendment as an individual right. Once incorporated the Supreme Court is not empowered to change or remove an individual right as they are sworn to protect and uphold the constitution. This is a power left only to the people as outlined in article v of the constitution. If the Supreme Court or the lower courts were to ever try, it would be tantamount to treason.

The court has said this does not prevent regulation, so it could be possible to prohibit AK47's. But those seeking to ban all semi automatic rifles and shot guns by using the AK47 as a trojan horse would ultimately lose. The Court would see such an all encompassing action as firearms ban which is in direct conflict with the second amendment. Such a comprehensive ban would require creating a new amendment which overturned the second amendment.