###H.Res.3
##A Resolution Authorizing and Appointing Managers of the House of Representatives for the Trial of Donald John Trump, President of the United States
Resolved, The House of Representatives hereby appoints the following individuals to serve as impeachment managers on behalf of the House of Representatives’ exhibition of the article of impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United States: Rep. u/Gryph25, Rep. u/JohnGRobertsJr., Mr. u/Darthholo, and Mr. u/KellinQuinn__
Resolved, The House of Representatives hereby appoints Mr. u/KellinQuinn__ to serve as lead manager of the house managers in their exhibition of the article of impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United States.
Resolved, The House designates the above managers to communicate to the Secretary of the Senate that these following appointments have been made. Further, so the managers may, in connection to the preparation and conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following:
Employing any legal, clerical, and any assistants the managers may require. To be paid from the applicable accounts of the Committee on Social Concerns and the Judiciary. Sending for individuals, papers, and any communications or filings with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of Representatives, in any connection to the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary.
This Resolution was written by u/KellinQuinn__ (D-WS)
This Resolution was sponsored by Speaker of the House u/Brihimia (D-US)
This Resolution was Co-Sponsored by Rep. u/Trans_Reagan (D-GA-1), House Majority Leader. u/ItsZippy23 (D-AC-1), Rep. u/Stephen29 (D-US)
United States Constitution Article 2 Section 4: >The President, Vice 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 Unites States House of Representatives is using its constitutionally-mandated power of impeachment in public hearings onto Donald Trump's extortion of a foreign government using American tax dollars to target his domestic political opponents and undermine American democracy to his personal benefit.
Summary from the House Intelligence Committee, including summary of previous witness testimony and overview of established facts: President Trump's Abuse of Power
The United States needs to set term limits on the basis of age for Congress and the President.
70+ year olds are frequently regarded as unemployable due to mental decline and disconnect with the current times, but a high number of them are serving as politicians in the United States. The oldest sitting Senator, Senator Feinstein is 88 and has served since 1992. Over twenty members of the Senate are in their 70s. President Biden is 78 years old, and his health and mental prowess are the subject of continuous scrutiny. The most extreme example, Senator Thurmond, served for just short of 50 years until he passed away at 100. Currently, the average age of House members is ~58 years old and that of the Senate is ~63 years old. Contrast this with the average age of the American citizen, ~38 years old.
All too often members of Congress demonstrate their age and disconnect with the times when they must talk about social media, tech, the internet, etc. with tech giants during hearings on the Hill.
Term limits would prevent leaders from turning holding office into a career, spending upwards of 30-40 years serving in office and hanging on until they can barely function in an official capacity. Term limits would bring new and fresh perspectives into Congress. Limiting time in office would also hinder the development of permanent relationships among politicians and interest groups/lobbyists. Yes, they would still occur, but they would come to an end once the official’s term expired.
I recognize the increased turnover would lead to a larger number of politicians who are not as familiar with the legislative process as someone who has been in the office for over a decade. But wouldn’t this also provide a motivation to train their successors and offer apprenticeship/mentorship opportunities like that seen in other communities?
We have minimum age requirements for someone to serve in the House, Senate, or presidency, so why shouldn’t we create a maximum? Mandatory retirement was ended for most professions with exceptions, such as the military, pilots, and law enforcement. But does representing the U.S. as a politician require less mental prowess than flying a plane?
Any change would require a constitutional amendment, which I never see happening.
For those of you who have not yet seen the new events 0.9 has added for what was the former path to avoid the civil war, here you are:
https://i.imgur.com/rMdFCVD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/L9IbKTS.jpg
So, as has been discussed in multiple posts now, the West Coast does indeed join the opposing side of the civil war due to clear aquisition of evidence that the assassination of Long/Reed was authorized by the acting President.
Now, let's put aside the silliness that they join that side rather than form the PSA for just a moment, as that is a discussion for another post.
What I would like to discuss is what the implications are that evidence does indeed exist that Olson (or as I've heard recently also possibly Garner) has authorized the assassination, and that Establishment politicians have easy access to this information.
In this scenario, it is now known by the House of Representatives and the United States Senate that the president has committed an unspeakable crime and tried to get away with it, even if it was considered "for the Greater Good." You can bet that it's not just going to be the Pacific representatives that are going to be upset about this. And, unlike MacArthur, Olson has not declared Marshall Law and temporarily dissolved the old systems of power. Checks and balances are still in check to oppose his Tyranny.
I think that it is clear that, to save face and the integrity of the office of the United States President, Olson would face immediate impeachment proceedings.
Now what would this look like in-game?
Well, first of all, it would make an interesting alternative to the Thirty Day deadline. As the Newspaper event claims, one of the demands of the resisting rebels is for Olson to step down and the creation of a reconciliation council. Now the council idea, especially one appointed by the opposition, is out of the question I'm certain, but Olson stepping down is far from being so.
The first event you could get, mere days after the rise of the PSA/AUS, could be one in which news leaks to the public about the assassination, and the ensuing outrage. You could even have discussion about how media moguls like the Hearst services attempt to downplay the severity of the act, but that discontent among the general public is clear.
Shorty after, or maybe around the same time, you could get an event from the opposing sides that list off their demands, the primary one o
... keep reading on reddit ➡
For the purpose of this question, I’m going to use Australia as a comparative example because it was modeled after the U.S Constitution and the British Westminister system of government.^1 Australia is a federal state, with a bicameral legislature and an independent executive branch.^Ibid.
The Australian House of Representatives possesses a confidence-and-supply power; meaning that if a certain number of Representatives lose the “confidence” of the Prime Minister or his cabinet, they can oust him through a vote. Whereupon new elections are held (sometimes referred to as “snap elections”) and the executive vacancy is filled.^2.
The U.S has something less powerful (giving the executive branch a greater degree of autonomy from the legislature), except the impeachment process requires both houses to impeach and convict executive officers.^3 Then, the aforementioned executive officer(s) must relinquish their power. With all the hubbub surrounding Donald Trump’s possible impeachment^4 (with a conviction most likely out of reach so long as the Republicans retain a majority of seats^5 ), what arguments support and deny the assertion that the lower house (the only one apportioned by population) should have a confidence-and-supply power?
Not trying to start a political discussion. I just really don't understand how two governing bodies that are supposed to have equal authority can pretend the other doesn't exist. If I'm not mistaken, if something is passed in the Senate, the House of Representatives can just ignore it and vice versa. How is that possible? Or if I'm mistaken in my understanding of this please correct my misunderstanding.
Produced this as part of my thesis and think it might be quite useful for work on this topic. The original documents were released in redacted .PDF format making their analysis rather inaccessible. To remove this barrier to entry and allow for more research on this topic, the relevant text data has been cleaned into a downloadable .xlsx file. There exists some inconsistencies in some entries due to the redacted nature of the files but an attempt has been made to retain as much information as possible. Do improve it if you can!
The code used to produce this .xlsx can be obtained here: FB Ads Script.Rmd
File data dictionary and some accompanying visuals: https://kyiyeunggoh.github.io/Other%20Projects/Russian%20FB%20Ads/Data_Dictionary__FB_Russian_Ads_.html
It's the Bar Bill Bar from the Bar Bill.
