On Monday, 19 March 2018 1:15:23 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Labor only needed a no-confidence vote to remove him (as opposed to impeachment which among other things requires admitting culpability at a party level) would have made it much different than the issues with Trump.
Perhaps you can clarify that reference to 'at a party level', as I'm not sure what you mean.
Strictly speaking, the process of impeachment (indictment) of government officials in and by the House of Representatives, followed if indictments ensue by trial where all 100 Senators form a jury, is done entirely without reference to political parties, as the latter have no official recognition anywhere in the US Federal framework..
More figuratively speaking, it is of course awkward and unpalatable for leaders of a party in the House to indict fellow party members, particularly the heads of the Executive Branch (Pres. and VP). You might have meant that.
Yes. Removing Tony Abbott did not involve admitting that he did anything particularly wrong (specifically no criminal acts etc). It merely meant that most MPs in his party thought that there was someone better able to do the job. If members of Congress were able to vote "we think Paul Ryan is more capable as President" instead of "we think our President is a criminal" then maybe things would be different. Also if Trump was subject to losing his job to Paul Ryan at a simple vote of members of Congress then maybe he would work more closely with them and avoid doing things that might hurt them at the polls. Finally while most Australians think they are voting for a PM, what they don't realise is that there's nothing stopping MPs from voting for someone different immediately upon entering Parliament. For example if a party has 2 factions and the one who had the votes to appoint a leader before the election got fewer seats in the election then the other faction could theoretically immediately launch a leadership spill (but this is the sort of thing you would only wish on the party you dislike). Another possibility is that if a party was a couple of seats short of majority and there were a couple of independants who said "we will form government with you but NEVER with that leader" then that could get a rapid leadership spill. Having a PM from a different party to the Parliamentary majority is something that is as close to impossible as anything can be in politics (parties aren't in the constitution so it's permitted but MPs just aren't going to do it). But having the US President at odds with Congress seems a common occurance after mid-terms. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/