Case Analysis Whose Pain Is It Anyway - amazonia.fiocruz.br

Case Analysis Whose Pain Is It Anyway Video

His effort was defeated by a vote ofwith 5 Republicans voting with the opposition to follow through with the trial. One of the dissenting Republicans was my Republican Senator; my other Senator is a so-called Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

I received a response the next day, and after reading it, I began to analyze more carefully each point in the justification. I concluded that virtually none were worthy or convincing and that they amounted to nothing more than the evasive language for which career politicians and their staffs are so well qualified. Making either side of an issue sound Case Analysis Whose Pain Is It Anyway the obvious choice without exposing the deep political calculations behind the decision. I set about responding in detail. My personal response is indented and italicized, and inserted following the original text to which it responds. As I read the material, images came to mind of Rep. Pem and Bob,Here is a reply from Senator Collins- Thank you for contacting me about the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump and my decision to support allowing the trial to begin.

Lilly exec resigns over relationship violation

Washington is rife with those who will swear a meaning not self-evident is there anyway, in keeping with the attached cornucopia. Applying the Constitution is your sworn duty, not twisting it to avoid some imagined loss of meaning!

If and would are irrelevant to the situation at hand. What about you violating your promise to the Maine electorate? The second penalty consideration is dependent on qualification to consider the first, which is limited to the President, which he is not. Most notably, inthe Senate tried William Belknap, a corrupt Secretary of War who had quickly resigned in a failed effort to escape impeachment. During the trial, former Secretary Belknap asserted Whosw the Senate lacked jurisdiction over his case because he was a private citizen. Your responsibility is to honor the Constitution, not to look for various and sundry ways to escape its clear meaning.

Harking back to to make a point is a bit of a stretch, one would think. Do you take an oath to honor Senate precedent or the Constitution?

About abyssum

Senate precedents include some shameful past history; Senator Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy come to mind, along with many others less notable. Regardless, a senate vote does not define Constitutionality. I have no doubt a search by the CRS could dig up scores of Senate votes that violated the Constitution. If I had your resources, I could find scholars, whose qualifications are as open to interpretation as your unnamed ones, who could take the opposite view and overwhelm yours. These are silly proclamations with no substance; such fluff is unworthy of you. No evidence was presented!

What testimony was taken? Are you so gullible as to act on what others with a clear and present political agenda have claimed, but with no substantiation? Does due process mean nothing?

Navigation menu

And are you in the habit of abiding by anything a Harvard Law Professor says, or only those things that confirm a decision you had already made? I imagine Congress has perfected the fine art of Professor shopping by subject area and ideology, along with thousands of others who stand ready to famously give their learned opinion. Could and would speculate on future link that are not in evidence.]