Impeach The President Analysis

Improved Essays
The senate as a possible remedy can, impeach the president. The constitution in Article 1 section 3 states: “The Senate will have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or Affirmation. When the president of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person hall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present” (pg. I). The president is almost done with his term, but they can impeach him for placing Garland, but it would be a waste of time. It would be a waste of time because during the process the president would probably done with his term. Further it I very ironic that if they would attempt to impeach him the Chief Justice, who would be …show more content…
This is why the framers wanted a unitary executive because of the beneficial values it would offer (422). These values allow for it to be the adequate branch to appoint, in absence of congress. The branch that takes care of the execution of all laws (pg.410). The President was given its power through article 2, where it entrusts his judgment. Then, it is nothing but obvious that the constitution, gives the president, by text and structure the promise to the values that should result from the presidents role (pg. 423). Senate is taking away the entrusted judgment given the the president by the constitution. Further, the Senate is not allowing for the virtues so wanted for an efficient government and execution of laws. The senate is therefore ruining the chance for the president to fulfill their purpose in government, given to them by the constitution. Another goal of the unitary executive is to avoid factions, which is important because how can the president fulfill its constitutional obligations when they are obstructed (pg.423). With the unitary executive placed as a significant value, we have the want of an efficient …show more content…
Making this problem more practical is important, since we are dealing with a political issue that lacks justiciability. A pragmatist approach can also work with the fact that the constitution has to work in a practical sense, meaning that congress can’t just ignore its obligations. An originalists’ approach would fail because of the fact that this was unprecedented for. Additionally, an originalist would possibly just allow them to figure it out for themselves because advice and consent would be interpreted in a way as it would be at the time it was written (pg. 140). Further, they would see at something congress should do, although there is a difference in the political environment. Originalism is different at interpreting advice and consent, then how a pragmatist would do it because pragmatists look at it context to today, but they look at how it would be applied to in reality and how it would

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    You cannot have the president fire judges because they disagree, it would lead to politics influencing the cases. That would lead to tyranny through the president, because he would get his way in every decision he would have to make. Separation of powers prevents one or many to get too much…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Edwards III is representing the pro side of this argument. One of his major arguments was that the Electoral College should pay attention and protect state’s interest. Citizens have interest also of who should be president. Presidents are supposed to pay attention to citizens not the states. Citizens make up the state, so if you do not have citizens you would not have states.…

    • 984 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Not only that, but this weakens the participation that the citizens get to have in the government itself. One of the main ideas that our founding fathers based the Constitution on was to give the people more power and say in what happens in order to balance the power more efficiently and prevent tyranny. This whole process of the people not getting to pick the judges overrides that idea. The President already has enough power, giving them this power could potentially cause a mess within the cabinet. It makes it easier for the President to do illegal activity because he could choose who was below…

    • 1094 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Confidence In Congress

    • 1227 Words
    • 5 Pages

    People worry more on opinions than a background, and this is in my opinion why the government has issues with Presidents not protecting the interests of the people. The synopsis is Presidents should represent us, they should be stringently tested, but once they are in office they may be impeached; but they should be able to run the nation and do it unattested. The factors of what a President should be and the testing of his integrity and honor should come far before he reaches…

    • 1227 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    17). Antifederalists also disputed the President’s power to grant pardons because he could hide crimes he may have commissioned. They criticized the executives blended power in regards to treaties “ The Executive and the Senate, [have] an exclusive power of legislation which might have been avoided by proper distinction” (EA pg.…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    III" and he goes on to note that that the framers stressed the separateness of the branches, as opposed to their independence. The majority in this case is primarily concerned that allowing the President to possess an unqualified ability to classify information would place him outside of the rule of law, and therefore outside the scope of either Congress or the court. Such a pernicious privilege would necessarily contravene the balance of power in the federal government, creating an Executive that could not be…

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Marmor's Argument Analysis

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages

    My main argument will be that legislatures have a high interest in perverting their interpretations of the constitution for political points, particularly in ways that favor majorities and harm minorities. While I think the greater possibility of biased constitutional interpretation by legislatures is harm enough, I add the point about minorities to reveal the potential damage of allowing partisan politicians to interpret a document meant “to declare principles that stand above every earthly power—the equality of each person…and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all.” Lawmakers, being democratically elected, have little to gain and much to lose by acting against the will of a majority of their constituents. Indeed,…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The President has two major ways to influence congress verbally; this is the threat of a veto and the State of the Union speech. The threat of a veto occurs when the president warns that if a certain thing is in a bill he/she will veto it. For instance, The Affordable Care Act has been a controversial subject in Obama’s presidency. The Republicans, which do not support the Affordable Care Act, currently control Congress; they are trying to defund the act so that it will no longer be in effect. The President has warned that any bill that includes the defunding of his Affordable Care Act will be vetoed.…

    • 727 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The impact the Act has on the Constitution is that it gives individuals rights against the state. The HRA has been under scrutiny by political parties due to the issues it poses on Parliamentary Sovereignty and allowing the ECtHR to make decisions surrounding domestic legislation. However, this misconception of the HRA could be due to the lack of education surrounding the Act and its role within society. This has led to political parties calling for reform, and to enact of a more rigid BBOR. A BBOR would have many positive aspects to the bill to heighten the rights of the individual but the bill that has been submitted by the Conservative party would not fit and accommodate the Convention into its ideology to “bring the rights home.” Subsequently, the ideas and values that have been maintained by the incorporation of the HRA and protecting the rights of the individual would be jeopardised.…

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The author states that in the case of a monarchy the king can be controlled, but with a president no one could stop him from taking charge of his army. The major focus of the article is that a president, in the eyes of the author, can set the terms in which he rules, and that power could turn a president into a dictator. The author believes that even if the president breaks the law he will still be exempt from punishment. The author fears that under the constitution and a president the will face a new form of oppression. A strong Anti-Federalist viewpoint is expressed in the Document F. The author opposed the ratification of the Constitution because he fears that the small group that wrote it has too much influence, which can led to corruption.…

    • 939 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays