General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCensure rather than impeachment.
Censure is a formal reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress. Unlike impeachment, presidential censure is not constitutionally sanctioned. Thus, it does not result in removal from office. Yet it has proved to be an effective form of public shaming, especially when implemented in a nonpartisan way. Such a punishment seems well suited for this president and this moment in our national history.
There is precedent for this strategy. Members of Congress have introduced censure resolutions against at least 12 presidents. The most successful effort was the censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834, when the Senate condemned him for removing federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States.
...Given that Democrats hold a significant majority in the chamber and thus represent a majority of the American people, these reprimands would have significant weight in the arena of public opinion. They would be even more effective if Pelosi choreographs a semiregular pattern of censure votes through the summer of 2020 and if the investigations are so irreproachable that some Republicans vote for censure.
LiberalFighter
(50,904 posts)manor321
(3,344 posts)Why is it ridiculous? Because we don't even know the fucking charges yet, that's why!
The reality is going to be bad. Very bad. Very very bad. 100 times worse than Nixon. Impeachment will be the only option. Anything less means that the rule of law has ended.
Plus a thousand times.
ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)It would have to be enough so that the Repub congress critters would also get on board. Otherwise it is just spinning wheels and wasting time. A centure would do as much damage, maybe more, than a failed impeachment attempt. Right? It's put on the record permanently. As the article said, Andrew Jackson tried to get his removed but we still remember it 200 years later.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)weigh the evidence is full whether "High Crimes and Misdemeanors have occurred. Then act in accordance with the evidence as our Constitution envisioned. Here is my argument for that position: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211628929
grumpyduck
(6,232 posts)that these people -- all of them -- are politicians and live in a world of horse-trading: "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine."
Personally I don' t like it; I could't do it and still look at myself in the mirror. But that's how it goes. For me, all I can hope is that all these new members of Congress manage to do something for the good of the country before they get sucked into the system.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,681 posts)The writer suggests that it would be "an effective form of public shaming," and that might have worked when Andrew Jackson was censured. But we've seen that Trump is completely impervious to shaming. He doesn't understand the concept of shame because he doesn't think he ever does anything wrong. A formal censure by House Democrats would do nothing but stir up another fit of rage-tweeting, and he'd keep doing what he does, without any shame at all.
dalton99a
(81,457 posts)Bradshaw3
(7,515 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)peggysue2
(10,828 posts)than indicted? And let's not sanitize mobster activity: money laundering, human trafficking, arms dealing, drug traffic, prostitution, child slavery, etc. Blood money, human suffering world-wide, ongoing as we politely argue how it's more politically feasible to censure someone--a number of someones--caught up and willingly participating in the worst human nature has to offer. For money, for power, for influence over not only Americans but the global community.
Censure. A slap on the wrist.
NO!
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)That should be enough punishment for Little Donnie!
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)There is nothing to gain.