Could the U.S. Supreme court uphold impeachment of a private citizen?

The Senate’s task of trying a private citizen on charges of impeachment as a private citizen seems wrong. True, Donald Trump was POTUS, yet no longer is, and the effort by a partisan faction in a different congress after he has left office is not only vindictive, it is like a vote by Democrats on who they will allow to run for the office of President- a nice swindle of voters if they can get it.

The resemblance to ex post facto legalities aside, Democrats have generated a wealth of extremist trends since the Obama administration gutting much of the regulations that required a general consensus for new laws to be made rather than a voter of one. Trying to make elections by popular choice obsolete via impeachment is another one to add to there list of trashing the Republic.

ANTIFAH has at least given the White House as their e-mail site, and that is another irony of the left in that they support the concentration of wealth and the rich these days, as that is the policy of the Democrat party plainly. It was President Obama who made Bush II tax cuts for the rich permanent after all, along with every Democrat in Congress besides Bernie Sanders.

The left have helped to close down the Internet for anyone not reflecting their master’s voice- Wall Street, as they pursue like most Americans, politics after the fashion of blind moles hungry for the little things. They cannot package political platforms together coherently in a way that would actually benefit the poor and middle class majority instead of the rich. The banality of evil in accepting mass impoverishment of the poor, insecure borders at the outsourcing of national production to China, abortion and homosexual marriage is finds millions of willing minions persuaded in the morality of dispensing with fundamental rights of free speech and the marketplace of ideas that aren’t their own. Politics doesn’t really need social media where free speech is certain for any political viewpoint is a verity for them.

Philosophers at least should have a circumspection of contemporary history in order to see the large trends of society. Capital grows at a faster pace than wages so wealth concentrates over time historically. Investing in China means that capitalists can skim the work of more than a billion people there as capital increases faster than wages. Corporatism and communism each repress publication of dissenting points of view ( I have had my writing banned from or the entire site taken down at more than a dozen sites for example) so the trend of reinforcing policies the rich most desire rather than those of the poor and middle class is rather inevitable.

One of the interesting points about Adam Smith’s nearly 300 year old economics text The Wealth of Nations’ is that is was written largely before either corporations or environmental conscientiousness existed. That is a reason it is so popular with unreflective votaries of the system. Restoring free enterprise economics within an ecologically sustainable parameter probably will require reigning it concentrations of wealth and the size of corporations, and that is as improbably as converting the trillion miles of highway surface of the United States of America into solar power generators.





%d bloggers like this: