Should there be a feasible and less severe congressional option rather than impeachment and dismissal?

Aug 2010
313
Cliffside Park, NJ
Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.

Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.
Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.
In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. The House did not consider censure, because the Senate could and likely would have ignored a censure bill.

If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.

If each chamber’s passed on bills could require the receiving chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Jan 2020
36
Pacific Northwest
Is one chamber of the U.S. Congress required to vote (with or without a recording individuals’ votes), in response to every bill passed by the other chamber? Unlike a bill of impeachment, Can't the Senate ignore an act passed by the House? I’m uncertain, but I don’t believe the chambers are required to respond.

Impeachment of President William Clinton was based upon accusations of his sexual dalliances while in office and then falsely denying them to the U.S. Congress.
Impeachment of Donald Trump was based upon accusations of his abusing his presidential powers and obstructing the U.S. Congress.
In both cases, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed there was sufficient cause to formally accuse the presidents of committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. The House did not consider censure, because the Senate could and likely would have ignored a censure bill.

If the Republican House in Clinton’s case, or the Democratic House in Trump’s case, were less firmly convinced that the presidents were acts were fully to the extent of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” or less firmly believed that ignoring those acts would seriously undermine our current or future national government, it would have been preferable that the House would have had an option less extreme than a bill of impeachment.

If each chamber’s passed on bills could require the receiving chamber to discuss among themselves, and return each of their member’s yes or no responses along with any written comments they wish to make, wouldn’t the U.S. Congress be more accountable to the nation?
Respectfully, Supposn
Well, in this case, it's not so much about making Congress accountable to the nation, as it is about eliminating a very real threat of a crime being repeated. Trump asked for a personal favor in exchange for approved aid. And he seems to have done the same kind of thing before, and knowing his personality and history, is very likely to do it again, and again, and again. And so a less severe congressional option would not solve the problem, or at least we shouldn't have risked it. But now we'll see how he does after Wednesday. I expect him to accelerate the transition to a despotic dictatorship.
 
Aug 2010
313
Cliffside Park, NJ
Well, in this case, it's not so much about making Congress accountable to the nation, as it is about eliminating a very real threat of a crime being repeated. Trump asked for a personal favor in exchange for approved aid. And he seems to have done the same kind of thing before, and knowing his personality and history, is very likely to do it again, and again, and again. And so a less severe congressional option would not solve the problem, or at least we shouldn't have risked it. But now we'll see how he does after Wednesday. I expect him to accelerate the transition to a despotic dictatorship.
Kode, in “this case", the impeachment of President Donald Trump, I don’t suppose we believe that resolution of censure from the Democratic House would not have been ignored by Senate. I don’t suppose the Democratic House expects the Republican Senate to remove the Republican President from office. Their motive was obviously to somewhat embarrass and reign in President Donald Trump.

[If the a full congressional chamber has voted in favor of a proposed action to be passed on to the other congressional chamber, I believe it would be advantageous that other chamber should be required to discuss, and their entire chamber be required to vote for or against the proposal and any alternatives they may wish to propose in response to the proposal. Each of the other chamber’s members’ votes and any of the other chamber’s members’ offered opinions regarding the proposal passed on to their chamber, should all be recorded and in response to congressional chamber that initiated the proposal.
I believe that would impel the U.S. Congressional chambers to be more answerable to each other and the entire nation.]

If this would have been the practice in 2019, I believe the Democratic House would have chosen to pass on a resolution of censure rather than of impeachment of the United States president. A Democratic House resolution of censure would (in itself) not be as embarrassing to the president, but if the Republican Senate were required to respond, they’d find it more difficult not to remedy the president’s actions by voting in favor of some alternative wording of censure and/or other proposed remedial steps.

I do not want any office holder’s undesirable activities to set precedents of normalizing additional radical behavior that threatens the integrity and reputation of our nation’s current or future governments. I want our presidents to usually serve their full terms and usually leave office after serving two full terms, or choosing not to run for re-election, or not being re-elected.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
  • Like
Reactions: tecoyah