monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The first Christians honored the day Jesus died and arose from the dead, but not his birth.

You're taking that remark out of context. As was explained by one of the other members, the founders felt it was important to have a check on a potential rogue president who might be elected through dishonorable means and manage to be re-elected by employing those tactics again.

They were not the first Christians after the church started.

you are worried about the wrong religion.

You're of the belief that accusations equal guilt, Bill?

The interpretation you offered appears to have been contrived to match as far as possible the issues in the Democrat's current articles, but I know of no other sources for its justification.

She said it cannot be left up to the voters, it needs no context.

The war on Christmas is just a bunch of baloney

As was explained by one of the other members, the founders felt it was important to have a check on a potential rogue president who might be elected through dishonorable means and manage to be re-elected by employing those tactics again.

The record, as I know it, suggests that they believed impeachment was a necessary feature of the government structure they were creating, but feared the misuse of it and, for that reason created fairly high barriers for its execution, and required the involvement of the Senate & Supreme Court with a high majority requirement for approving it.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

Alexander Hamilton warned specifically about a foreign power’s ability to cultivate a president or another top official. In Federalist Paper Number 68, published in 1788, Hamilton wrote:

Quote:

These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistry of the Union?

The founders set up our system of checks and balances among three branches of government, in part, to restrain potential presidential corruption. They knew:

Quote:

… that if the checks and balances proved to be not strong enough to restrain the executive, or if the legislative and judicial branches, convinced by a crisis, yielded too much power to the executive—well, that way lay tyranny, because a president would then be able to do whatever he pleased, even if in the process he destroyed the republic.

One means of preventing this type of tyranny was through impeachment. As James Madison noted, there needed to be a way to remove the president other than through a subsequent election, or else “[h]e might pervert his administration into a scheme of [embezzlement] or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Christmas as holiday, much like almost every other holiday was first a pagan holiday.

The Supreme Court’s Final Exam

How the justices rule on three cases involving Trump’s financial records will tell us all we need to know about the court.

When the first two of President Trump’s appeals seeking to shield his financial records from disclosure reached the Supreme Court last month, I predicted that the justices would take their institutional interests into account and turn the cases down.

I was wrong.

And on reflection, now that the court has agreed to hear those two appeals plus a third, I’m glad I was wrong. Here’s why: The eventual decisions, to come in the months after the as-yet unscheduled arguments in late March or early April, will give the country much-needed clarity about the Supreme Court. With the court in the full glare of an election-year spotlight, we will learn beyond any doubt what kind of Supreme Court we have — and whether its evolution into partnership with a president who acts as if he owns it is now complete.

Those of us who have been warning about this evolution are well aware that it’s a contested claim, subject to ready dismissal as overstatement or ideologically driven fearmongering. So I want to make the case here that for the justices to do anything other than affirm the three decisions at issue by two Courts of Appeals would be to vindicate both the warnings and the president’s disturbing assumption...

Christmas as holiday, much like almost every other holiday was first a pagan holiday.

Quote:

The interpretation you offered appears to have been contrived to match as far as possible the issues in the Democrat's current articles, but I know of no other sources for its justification.

So using the leverage of the office to secure personal political favors from foreign governments is not an abuse of power? And this practice should become an option for future presidents to employ at their discretion and kept from public view?