Some Democrats apparently think that the impeachment vote means that Trump is out of office
It might be difficult to believe after weeks of talk about impeachment that there are people who still don’t understand the process, but on Twitter last night, “#ByeTrump” was trending because many believed that the House vote on impeachment meant that President Donald Trump was now removed.
Some had to be schooled then today when they found out to their surprise that lo and behold, Trump was still president and that no, being impeached is not the same thing as removal.
Although shocking, it’s not surprising. We’ve known for quite some time that the teaching of civics is nothing like what it used to be, and that many people schooled in the US grow up ignorant of even the basics of the way our government works. So, many people who seem to be politically active and involved – involved enough to tweet about politics on Twitter, anyway – appear to have thought that impeachment itself would remove Trump from office.
This isn’t just about Trump. Apparently, these people are so ignorant of the entire picture of how our government is designed that they think the Founders set things up so that one body of our legislature can remove a president by a simple majority vote. Poof, you’re gone!
I’ve seen analogies saying that idea about impeachment resembles what happens in the UK with a parliamentary vote of “no confidence.” But I beg to differ. Not only is it different because in the UK the executive is meant to serve only at the will of the legislature, but also because a “no confidence” vote occurs at the hands of the prime minister’s own party. The PM is always of the same party as the dominant party in Parliament (or a parliamentary coalition of relatively simpatico parties, with the PM’s own party having a plurality). So any “no confidence” vote is the result of a majority of MPs in the PM’s own party [ADDED NOTE, and see ADDENDUM below: and/or the coalition parties] turning against him/her.
That is night and day from what happened during the House impeachment vote, which represented the opposition party trying to throw the president out. His own party, the GOP, supported him 100%. The American system gives the House, when controlled by an opposition party, a perfect opportunity to try to weaken any president of the other party. Most Houses have resisted the temptation because they understand the danger of setting such a precedent (danger to them when the tables are turned) as well as the futility of it if they lack the votes of 2/3 of the Senate to convict. That’s why the Senate gets the last word, and it takes far more than a simple majority to get rid of a president.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s some further elucidation on no confidence votes in the UK and how they have worked in modern times, from a commenter named “London Trader”:
That’s not really how a no confidence vote works in the UK. First there are very rarely coalitions in the UK parliament. The only one in my lifetime was Cameron’s first term. There are occasionally minority governments but again not that frequently. The last parliament had a minority but the previous minority government was in the mid 1970’s I think. The only successful no confidence vote that I remember was in 1979 when Thatcher toppled the Labour government of James Callaghan. From memory he had a minority by that point because he’d lost his majority in successive bye elections from 1976 onward.
Here’s a description of a case in Israel in which a coalition partner of the PM’s own party forced a successful no confidence vote there against Shamir.
It is also clear that no confidence votes are extremely rare in those countries that have parliamentary systems and allow them.]
One of my favorite movies, and one of my favorite lines from it!
I rather enjoyed this vid, courtesy @jewsfortrump: Hey Siri, who is President of the United States?
Neo,
You are correct in that it is a flawed analogy. But since we have basically a 2 party system. It will be. As you said most Prime Ministers are named by a coalition of various parties who agree to a nomination. Many of those parties then switch allegiances based upon circumstance.
The House has turned this into a strictly political choice. Taking things out a bit farther. What is to prevent the house from simply impeaching a president from day 1. A position I might add publicly held by many democrats. Then holding the articles indefinitely . And then seeing what happens in downstream elections. If they think they can cobble together a 2/3 majority then introduce them then.
Like the state compact it has the veneer of being legal. While totally destroying the institution its trying to work around.
. . . a “no confidence” vote occurs at the hands of the prime minister’s own party
Indeed, and when at some future date a sufficient majority of the US House Democrat caucus chooses to return to sanity (hence into the better graces of a large percentage of the American people), they can exercise their own form of no confidence vote to remove Nancy Bad Faith Pelosi from her Speakership. That will be a welcome day.
How would they know? They’re activists. Definition — taking action, duh; not wasting time thinking. Almost every Democrat is an activist, it’s the third word out of their mouth.
The level of ignorance from the ‘resistance’ never fails to amaze me.
Neo: So any “no confidence” vote is the result of a majority of MPs in the PM’s own party turning against him/her.
Entirely correct but in case of a minority govt it is the coalition partner(s) who have turned against the govt. A good example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Clark#Fall_of_government. This example also illustrates the fact that the govt can also fall if a budget related bill fails to pass. In this you don’t need a “Motion of no confidence”.
If a govt has a majority it extremely unlikely that their own party will initiate a “no confidence” motion. What they are more likely to do is to get another party leader with most recent example being BoJo replacing May.
Andy:
That’s why I wrote it this way:
In other words, a majority of the PM’s own party or the coalition formed when the PM’s own party has a plurality and other parties ally with it.
One of my favorite movies, and one of my favorite lines from it!
Tom: And to think Norman Lear is reconsidering a remake of “The Princess Bride”! Even the Grauniad knows better:
There’s no official news that a Princess Bride remake is in the works – don’t panic – but the mere mention of the idea has been descended on by fans of the original, with the actor Jamie Lee Curtis, the film’s original star Cary Elwes, and even the US senator Ted Cruz among those declaring it “inconceivable”.
…
This led to an outcry, with Elwes – who played Westley in the 1987 Rob Reiner cult classic – among many who took to Twitter to lament the idea.
“There’s a shortage of perfect movies in this world,” he tweeted. “It would be a pity to damage this one.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/18/inconceivable-rumour-of-the-princess-bride-remake-sends-fans-into-pit-of-despair
Inconceivable indeed.
Neo, I took “own party” to mean only his own party and not including the coalition partners. My mistake.
As for “The PM is always of the same party as the dominant party in Parliament”, I am guessing you are using coalition partners to mean the dominant party. In a British parliamentary system that lingo is confusing. Suppose in a 100 seat parliament three parties have following seat distribution: party A 45, B 40, C 15. The party “A” will get a chance to form a govt and if that fails then party “B” will be given a chance which it can do with party “C” as it gives them a majority. We would say that party “A” is the dominant party in the Parliament even though in this scenario the PM can be from party “B” and/or “C”. For an example of an “and” scenario see https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-09-24/benjamin-netanyahu-and-benny-gantz-discuss-joint-prime-minister-position
That’s not really how a no confidence vote works in the UK. First there are very rarely coalitions in the UK parliament. The only one in my lifetime was Cameron’s first term. There are occasionally minority governments but again not that frequently. The last parliament had a minority but the previous minority government was in the mid 1970’s I think. The only successful no confidence vote that I remember was in 1979 when Thatcher toppled the Labour government of James Callaghan. From memory he had a minority by that point because he’d lost his majority in successive bye elections from 1976 onward. So no one from the governing coalition voted against the government.
If the party with the majority wants to bring down the government it can simply have an internal vote to replace the party leader and then the new leader can take over, similar to how Johnson replaced May and May replaced Cameron and further back Major replaced Thatcher.
I am not surprised that many Democrats don’t understand the impeachment process. After all, according to surveys, many of them believe that Russians altered vote totals to give the election to Trump, an idea for which there is no foundation whatever.
Conservatives decry the fact that so many voters are so stupid. The Left relishes it.
Fox News covered the impeachment proceedings from gavel-to-gavel, a dreadful spectacle that was only made worse by Pelosi’s decision NOT to send notification to the Senate. She were so eager to get it done, and then when it was done, she didn’t do anything with it.
But the best part of all the reporting on this clown show was some guest on Tucker Carlson last night, who captured Pelosi’s show in an apt description. It was, he said, “like watching a group of monkeys hump a doorknob.” Poor Tucker almost dropped his teeth. As for me, I just laughed and laughed.
Perfect description.
some guest on Tucker Carlson
Sean Davis: “You’re welcome, America”
https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1208175406140051456
I think that it is in the Constitution that Putin has to sign off on the House vote of impeachment, or something or another. Or maybe the FBI or Michelle.
Watched the replay, sdferr. Laughed another 20 minutes! It’s the straight face with which he delivers that line that makes it perfect! My brother (who has been gone 4 years) put me on to Neo Neocon many years ago. I SO wished I could have called him last night to share a laugh over Sean Davis’ comment. Absolutely golden!
Because they don’t have even a passing understanding of the Constitution.
So sad that Wallace Shawn, like Anthony Zerbe or Jeff Corey, is a card-carrying communist.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the accused a right to a speedy trial. It seems to me that this applies to presidential impeachment, since the Constitution refers to the process as a trial. President Trump should demand a speedy trial, and watch the opposition squirm. Opinions, anyone?
I read that article. All of the examples therein can be easily interpreted as liberals happy that the first stage of impeachment is over.
You would have to be very biased against them and/or in a conservative bubble to assume the other interpretation; that they think Trump has been removed from office.
Thread winner:
CapnRusty on December 20, 2019 at 7:30 pm said:
Conservatives decry the fact that so many voters are so stupid. The Left relishes it.
Thread loser: Steve D.
What part of ” #ByeTrump” do you not understand?
“You would have to be very biased against them and/or in a conservative bubble to assume the other interpretation; that they think Trump has been removed from office.” Read some of the tweets. Just go to Twitter and search for the hash tag #ByeTrump and you will see.
Steve D:
Some samples that indicate you are wrong:
One tweet that posts the song “Ding dong, the witch is dead” and shows a gif of people doing a happy-dance.
These people certainly appear to think impeachment means that Trump has already left or is leaving very soon, before ever being able to run for a second term.
A few more with the hashtag #ByeTrump:
There are more in that vein…
First there are very rarely coalitions in the UK parliament.
Sure, but you’re not the only country using that system. New Zealand usually has a coalition government, and we run a basically (unicameral) Westminster system. Australia, Canada etc all have the “no confidence” system.
The Muldoon government fell when an MP voted for the opposition as their majority was only one.
I might point out that the current Labour government is very much a minority one, requiring two coalition partners. They have 46 of the 120 seats, whereas National have 56.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #65, identified the greatest danger in an impeachment is “that the decision [to impeach] will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt”.
This week the Democratic Party – and the Democratic Party alone – deliberately pushed the United States over the brink into that greatest danger. And all the while pretending to act out of love of country and regard for our Constitution. A graceless and dishonest display of ugly, sanctimonious, anti-American political cynicism. That is exactly what Pelosi, Schiff, and Jerrold the Hutt will be remembered for.
My wife, who isn’t well versed in politics, called me with the bad news that Trump had been removed from office. She got that impression from news reports which hailed the “historical action” that Pelosi and the HoR had impeached Trump. After I explained the process of impeachment, she seemed even more confused.
I suspect that a great many Low Information Voters are similarly confused, and like the belief that Obamacare was “free health care”, that was the intention of the Democrats and MSM.
Pelosi refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate intentionally continues this con game.
https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2019/12/20/president-accuses-pelosi-quid-pro-quo-recommends-impeachment/
“Nancy Pelosi is looking for a Quid Pro Quo with the Senate. Why aren’t we Impeaching her?”
More reversals of principle from the Democrats.
“If they didn’t have double standards…”
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/12/20/752996/
Pingback:I’m Managing to Contain My Surprise – Daily Pundit
What a strange thread. Far too many comments stating that “that’s not how a parliament works” (or “that’s not how a vote of confidence works”), followed by an anecdote illustrating that that’s exactly how it works. Weird.
mythx on December 20, 2019 at 3:43 pm said:
And then seeing what happens in downstream elections.
No. The articles should expire with the end of one congress and the seating of another, as all bills do. They would have to re-impeach each congress.
Also, a note on the PM serving at the leisure of the parliament:
The PM is not the full executive in the UK’s system (though he is in some parliamentary systems). Supreme executive power resides in the monarch, with a bunch of it shared out to the PM. The UK’s system is not really executive/legislative/judicial. A LOT of governments don’t divide things up as thoroughly as we do.
(Our Founders were pretty smart fellows, the lot.)
And democracy prevailed.
Wow, the ignorance goes a couple of levels deeper on that one!
Morons. And, of course, our natural rulers.
They’re also wrong in that the house agreeing on articles of impeachment doesn’t mean the president has been impeached.
That doesn’t happen until the house votes on the impeachment itself being presented to the senate, something speaker Pelosi seems disinterested in doing any time soon.
Huxley, I can’t imagine it being done any better. Especially the parts with Carol Kane and Billy Crystal. The cast of stars in that movie is amazing.
This compares to the Dems wailing that Hillary got more popular votes than Trump did. Some still haven’t accepted the Electoral College. In fact didn’t even know that something called the Electoral College selected the President. They’re still in the high speed wobbles that she isn’t President….. and now to make things worse, Ms Pelosi didn’t drag Trump from the Oval office even though the majority of the house members voted for impeachment. Most of these people all went to Publik Skool and couldn’t pour pee out of a boot even if the instructions were written on the heal in 6 different languages.
Hi John,
“Most of these people all went to Publik Skool and couldn’t pour pee out of a boot even if the instructions were written on the heal in 6 different languages.”
Please tell me you meant to write ‘heal’. Otherwise, welcome to Muphry’s law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law