Wether the Constitution is based on a present model, or an approximated objective, the partiality and the partisanship of it’s interpretation can be understood, in light of past or future variable elements of the sense of that understanding.
However , such dialectic makes little sense without that variability, since the Republicans see it as transcending that interpretation in an absolute sense, and that basically is shown by the evidentiary charges of foreign interference and collusion.
That reduces the applicability if said constitution’s understand ing in terms of contradictory rhetoric.
Today the difference is further fine -tuned by relativistic inferencial terms, and hence the contradiction appeals to a wider scope of interpretation.
The party line further fragments this divided partisanship, whereas a single layered divided one dimensional rhetoric rules the bilateral model.
Functionally independent, by checks and balances , excluded elements mirror preceding interpretations, irrespective of actual mutual involvement ; In stead of a smooth and continuous procedure - the disjunctives eliminate the need for a
functional middle.
In stead , the view of a center as a shifting fulcrum on a single trajectory ,is a description based on elements that inherently make sense. The continuity is comprised of elements which may not cohere with each other.
The time we spent here arguing about the idea of the gaps within that continuum , giving rise to original framing and content , may give pause
to giving a more accurate sense of how the shift toward either side of the aisle may effect equilibrium in establishing constitutional intent. Rather , instead by split mandate on the idea of check and balances, a progressive, rather then a regressive (make America great again) inductive could be far more effective to us and future generations.
That one of the earliest charges against Trump was an absence of a declared mandate, a charge that lead to the actual position we as society find ourselves in, often goes unrecognized nowadays.
The missing element is precisely the theatrical dialectic, that has.been used to create the anomaly as collusive. Hegel & Marx , instead of developing the required continuous structural succession to create an ever widening conjunction in form and practice,( as shown by the the existentially reduced phenomena of the the spirit of the constitutive aspects of the nothingness of the spirit) , had no relation to the manner in which it effected the materiality of it’s sensibility. They are mere expressed opinions in fragmented terms. The gap created a demand for resolution, and the filler, Kant’s imperative in categorical terms comes to mind.
No mention from either side of a.compromise, basically because putting party line of either into a compromising situation, widens the gap , rather then narrowing plausibility, into contradictive points of view. The constitution is reduced to competing , rather then unified modes of interpretation.
Nowhere do the colluded economic and political considerations seen as related, that is why the major defense Trump uses to his lack of mandate in the impeachment procedure is the materially precedented defense: the roaring economy, as he sees tax cuts play into it. He disclaims any qualitative and unified priority as a necessary distinction, and the fact that the tax cut improves mostly the upper social strata , does not enter the equation in his mind.
Great Compromises in United States history lay historically alongside the necessity to change the consisting negative effects prior assumptions of larger collusive and unrecognized relationships to the fragmented logically continuous sequences, that mirrored the actual spatial-temporal spaced out facts and fictions.
That Ayn Rand was able to justify this with a shrug, developed the view which made the transcendental irrelevant , and created the idea that Marxism dealt a fatal blow to the dialectic.
When the USSR was replaced by a diminished Russia, the loss of the material invalidated and totally expunged the idea of spiritual progressive development. It’s consequence was split by partisan rhetoric, in literal terms of what constitutes political development, within the confines of narcissistic brackets, returning it’s self as subsisting as in for it’s self, rather then in it’s self.
There the distinction became axiomatic and contradictory. The 'for-it’s self became the contrary of what it should have developed into, it mirrured the conjectures of mimicking the sudden morphed values, that negated the conservative values of institutionalized policy and long held cultural predicates. The process was shorted, at a much faster rate then cultural associations could absorb.
The resulting confusion has become an international, macabre dance, of power played determinants, with blind determinism of the will to succeed became the battle cry.
This old dance, has nothing but a foreboding structural precedence behind it, and should resonate with it’s loosely associated forbidding aspect, an aspect that can be associated with dialogue going underground, each party becoming almost a secret organization, each with it’s own particular agenda.
This is the time to recognize imminent danger, and not long after from hence, when the waste in human value is belatedly and with feigned regret is finally expressed.
There is more to this diatribe, then seemingly simple obfuscation can gain the power, to enable a national/ international will to set the agenda by which to govern, not only through materially induced Machiavellian stratagem, but by reliving the spirit of the Law, which does transcend the historically significant milestones which required action through time.
Compromise was at several times in history a requisite by which to go on living , by measure of rationality.
Evidence already gathered has revealed John Bolton’s deep misgivings about the way Trump was pressurising Ukraine for personal political gain.
Trump impeachment inquiry
Trump impeachment: Democrats push for Bolton to testify in Senate trial
Schumer writes to McConnell seeking terms of trial
The lies have it: how Republicans abandoned the truth
Ed Pilkington in New York
Mon 16 Dec 2019 08.38 EST
Democrats are pressing for John Bolton, the former national security adviser fired by Donald Trump in September, and the president’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, to be called to testify in the impeachment trial expected to be held in the Senate next month.
Trump impeachment: Democrats fume as Republicans rally behind president
The demand that two key eye witnesses to many of the most contentious elements of the Ukraine scandal should testify was contained in a letter from Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, to his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell.
The request sets up a bruising clash over the terms of only the third impeachment trial in US history.
The trial, which Schumer proposes should start on 7 January, is now all but certain. The House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats, is set to vote in favor of two articles of impeachment on Wednesday.
In his letter, Schumer lays out a possible structure based on how Bill Clinton’s impeachment was organised in 1999. He pointedly notes that the ground rules on that occasion were approved by a vote of 100-0.
He writes: “Senate Democrats believe strongly, and I trust Senate Republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts … The trial must pass the fairness test with the American people. That is the great challenge for the Senate in the coming weeks.”
But hopes of a similar bipartisan agreement over the likely trial were all but dead in the water before Schumer sent his letter. Republicans have made clear they have no intention of abiding by constitutionally proscribed parameters for the trial, which effectively place senators in the role of jurors.
McConnell, who as the majority leader will have ultimate say over how the trial is conducted, has stated brazenly that Trump will not be convicted and that he will design the trial in consultation with the president – the lead juror in league with the defendant.
“Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel,” McConnell said last week.
Other senators have indicated they have made reached a verdict of acquittal even before the first witness is called.
“I have made up my mind, I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,” Lindsey Graham, the Trump apologist from South Carolina, has said.
This weekend, footage of Graham speaking in 1999, when he was a House manager in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, made the rounds on social media.
“I have a duty far greater than just getting to the next election,” Graham said in the footage. “Members of the Senate have said, ‘I understand everything there is about this case, and I won’t vote to impeach the president.’ Please allow the facts to do the talking … Don’t decide the case before the case’s end.”
Though the Republicans are in the driving seat, their control is not beyond challenge. Were the Democrats to persuade just four Republicans to vote against party lines they could reach the 51 votes needed to determine some features of the trial.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Schumer implied that getting those four votes was not out of the question, though he would give no names of potential targets.
“There are a good number of Republicans who are troubled by what the president did,” he said, “who want to see all the facts.”
Speculation has focused on senators including Mitt Romney of Utah, who has criticised Trump relatively strongly, and moderates Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Trump faces two articles of impeachment. The first accuses him of misusing his office to bully Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden in a way that would benefit Trump’s re-election campaign; the second charges the president with obstructing Congress by blocking witnesses to impeachment hearings.
Despite the hyperpartisan battle ahead, Schumer’s demand for Bolton and Mulvaney to be called as witnesses could be significant as it goes to the heart of the evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that impeachment is devised to penalise.
Two other key officials have also been requested by the Democrats: Mulvaney’s senior adviser, Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security, Office of Management and Budget.
Trump impeachment: Lindsey Graham will ‘not pretend to be a fair juror’
Evidence already gathered has revealed Bolton’s deep misgivings about the way Trump was pressurising Ukraine for personal political gain, reportedly complaining: “I am not part of whatever drug deal [Trump aides] are cooking up”.
Mulvaney’s testimony would also be potentially critical given his statement in October that there had indeed been quid pro quo with Ukraine. The Trump administration withheld almost $400m in military aid to the country at the same time as demanding an investigation into Biden.
Alongside Schumer’s letter, the Democrat-controlled judiciary committee also released early on Monday its complete 658-page report into impeachment.
It charges Trump with placing “his personal, political interests above our national security, our free and fair elections, and our system of checks and balances. He has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that will continue if left unchecked.
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.