Apparently you are not to be trusted.
From the introductory essay, “The Struggle to Be Separate,” from The Amish Struggle with Modernity, University Press of New England, 1994:
And from the IRS site, here’s the form each member needs to file.
An uncited assertion from Wikipedia is not exactly persuasive. I’m willing to be proven wrong, of course, but I’d like to see an actual example of a federal official being impeached after leaving office.
Another voice to the pile that says to friedo “tell the administration about the poor quality of teaching”. Do it shortly after you graduate if you feel that you must. They will be particularly interested, since it will clearly NOT be a case of a student bitching because they got a poor grade. Phrase it in a way that makes it clear that you’re wanting to help them maintain the high quality of the institution.
We had an adjunct faculty member once who was teaching a summer course - abbreviated, 6 weeks like yours. I asked one of my students how it was going about 3 weeks in. She told me that the teacher had not shown up for the past week. They had emailed and called her office, but nobody knew where she was. She just had not been showing up. I tracked down her home number and found out that she had gone to Europe. It was not an emergency - her mother said she was 'on holiday for 2 weeks". She had left without telling her class (or the administration) a thing. 2 weeks out of a 6 week class. I blew the whistle on her. The administration was dumbfounded.
It has never happened. However, in at least two cases–those of Senator William Blount (1797) and Secretary of War William Belknap (1876)–the Senate continued with impeachment trials long after the defendant had left office (Blount by expulsion and Belknap by resignation), for the purpose of possible implementation of the disqualification clause.
In neither case did the Senate eventually convict, but they could have done so. Logically, by extension, the House could probably initiate the process after an official had left office. In the event that they ever do so, it’s unlikely that a court would strike it down. The issue will probably remain academic.
However, on one point your professor is unequivocally wrong–Ford’s pardon had no effect on Nixon’s eligibility for impeachment. Impeachments are specifically placed beyond the pardon power.
From Wiki on William W. Belknap
Impeachment is such a rare process that it’s going to be difficult to find an example of any particular thing. However, we can look at the Constitution itself:
That’s from the Constitution’s impeachment clause. If the only punishment allowed was removal from office, then it would be clear that an impeachment could only occur for someone in office. But the fact that the punishment can include other things indicates that post-resignation impeachment is something contemplated by the Constitution. If you couldn’t impeach after resignation, then these additional punishments would become meaningless. Everyone could just resign from office a few days before the final vote was taken.
This article lays out the main arguments in favor of the idea that post-office impeachment is allowed. Here’s another article which lays out other arguments in favor of the idea. I suppose one could make this an issue of esoteric debate, but if you had to simplify the issue for a class, then I’d go with post-office impeachment being allowable.
Interesting stuff! Thanks.
I still maintain my position that Professor Moron McDumbass, Adjunct Lecturer, is both a moron and a dumbass, though.
***The President has the power to dismiss Congress. **
This is blatently untrue. If it was true, then a lot of Presidents would of dismissed Congresses of other parties who did not agree with policies. The Congress is a member of the Legislative Branch, which is one of the three branches (other two Executive and Judicial) who counterbalance each other in power
***A head of government and head of state are the same thing. **
In the USA, this is more or less true. Many nations however have both a Prime Minister and a President, the PM is the head of government, while the President is head of state. However a teacher who is teaching college level civics should know better than to call those two interchangable.
***People who sell illegal copies of DVDs “would be prosecuted under piracy laws.” **Yes, this guy does not know the difference between actual piracy, with eye-patches and Arrrgs, and metaphorical piracy, with copyright violations. (This was not an unfortunate choice of words. This discussion occurred amongst a lecture on enumerated powers in Article I § 8, specifically related to that section’s statements pertaining to crimes upon the high seas.)
The Feds have piracy laws on the books, copy a movie and selling it is a criminal offence.
*The federal government has criminal jurisdiction on the Interstate. (Seriously, WTF? Does he think the state trooper giving him a speeding ticket is a Fed?)
The FBI has jurisdiction over state and local authorities. Usually the FBI deals with crimes that happen over more than one state and special crimes like kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting money and a host of crimes that span local jurisdictions. More or less, the Feds rule in the “cop realm”, highways or not.
In my knowledge, the individual states are mainly responsible for the upkeep of the highway, with the Federal government kicking in most of the funds. (This is importantwhen talking about the drinking age below.)
***Gerrymandering is a synonym for redistricting. **
Redistricting is when enough people leave a district to make that district obsolete. That district will be absorbed by others to make new districts. Gerrymandering is a district that is grossly out of shape that does not follow natural boundries, but share a similar voting block or group. Fairly different things.
***States can set term limits for their Congressional delegations. (Nope.) **
A member of Congress is a Federal position with no term limit. I guess a state could try this, (and should actually, to kick out old motherfuckers like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and others who have been around forever.) but I don’t think it would work.
***All members of the Cabinet must be natural-born citizens “because they’re in the line of succession.” **
I guess your teacher never heard of Henry Kissinger. If he has never heard of Kissinger, he should not be teaching University!!!
***Congress sets the drinking age. (OK, kinda, but the fact that this statement is a vast oversimplification was never touched upon. I don’t think he knows that it is an oversimplification at all.) **
Congress made a law withholding highway funds to states whose drinking age isn’t 21 by a certain date. The ages went up as soon as I became 18 and developed a taste for alcohol.:mad:
***This one is a goodie: Congress could have impeached Nixon after he resigned. “But he was pardoned.” **
No need to impeach if the person being impeached has already left office. Now, what would be interesting to see if the Congress can strip an ex-President of his pension and his title if it was seen after they left office that there were crimes committed.
***Even better: A federal impeachment can result in a prison sentence. **
Impeachment more or less means that the person impeached is being charged with not doing their duty in the office. Clinton was impeached in office. If a President did nothing all day but drink Wild Turkey, played golf and went to titty bars every night and did not even try to do the job, he could probably be impeached for dereliction of duty. Maybe, mayeb not. Now I am sounding like your professor.
*He doesn’t know the difference between a Joint Committee and a conference committee. I don’t know either, but I have heard these terms and if I was doing a lesson plan, i would know what they are. Again, if the guy is a Uni. teacher in Poly Sci, he should know this already.
***The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “only hears cases from within D.C.” **The Court of Appeals is the court that one can appeal to after a conviction in a Federal Court. There are several federal court districts. For example, Timothy McVeigh was convicted in a Federal District court, and appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals. Teacher needs to watch more Law and Order.
***The Supreme Court happily gives their opinion on pending legislation. **
The Supreme Court members are not politicos and have gone out of their way most of the time through their history to NOT give their opinions publically. The Judicial branch is the one branch out of the three that is not political, at least not one after one gets the job.
***Residents of US territories are not citizens. **(There were two Puerto Ricans in the fucking class!)
Maybe these guys can show the teacher their passports! Territorial citizens cannot vote for President (or have their own electors) but other than that have every right that the rest of us do.
*Defendants in military courts-martial are required to use their JAG defenders and may not hire civilian lawyers.
BULLSHIT! Are you kidding me? One can choose or have any kind of counsel one wishes or represent oneself. There have been many military cases with civilian defenders. For example, William Calley of the infamous My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. From Wiki…
Taking the witness stand, Calley, under the direct examination by his civilian defense lawyer George Latimer, …
***The Amish don’t pay any income taxes. (Well, I dunno. Maybe most of them don’t have taxable income. Sounds fishy though.) **
The church, or any church does not pay taxes. However, if it is not part of the church, they do. Probably in the Amish realm, everything that is done is part of the church. I am sure there are Amish people who do work in companies or for other people, and the law stipulates reporting the income for tax purposes. But to say that the Amish themselves do not pay taxes is a bit ridiculous.
Your teacher couldn’t teach first graders, much less college students. On the final exam, just pick all the wrong answers. Since this guy is about 90% wrong, you should get a 90, or an A. I like Political Science and took a lot of classes on government and civics in school. I don’t know it all, and I am the first to admit it, but this teacher doesn’t know shit, but the way colleges work, the students are stuck with the buffoon teacher without the right to drop, move or refund the class. It’s a waste.