A few observations on Rep. Max Rose announcing that he will vote in favor of the articles of impeachment. Some local Democratic elected officials and progressive supporters have called his announced action brave.
I suppose voting for something, in this case the impeachment of President Trump, that a clear majority of your constituents oppose and that, in the view of most Americans, never reached the level warranting articles of impeachment, could be construed as brave. Others — which I suspect is the majority —might say it was foolish and solid grounds for Rose’s defeat in next year’s November election.
In the aftermath of the committee vote moving the two articles to the floor of the Congress, a freshman Democratic congressmember declared that he would oppose the impeachment effort and switch his enrollment to the GOP. Numerous polls have shown that independent voters who had been on the fence concerning impeachment when the most recent effort started, had moved solidly against impeachment by the time the Jerrold Nadler-chaired committee voted.
Thus, both empirically and subjectively, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Nadler and the Democratic Congressional Caucus appear to have hurt themselves.
One other observation relating to Rep. Rose’s statement. He brought up, as he always does, his very honorable military efforts as a justification. There are far more just as honorable military veterans in Congress, such as Rep. Lee Zeldin, as well as members of the military currently serving, who completely disagree with Rep. Rose. Furthermore, military veterans in general and those currently serving are among the strongest supporters of the president.
Finally, it is also worth noting that this time-consuming and expensive impeachment process, which took focus away from many important issues affecting our nation, will come to a screeching halt with what the U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has described as a quick Senate trial resulting in an acquittal.
The New York State Conservative Party had its day in court last week. The hearing, which concerned the party’s efforts against the New York State Commission on Public Finance, and which will likely result in a summary judgment within the next 10 days, was held before a State Supreme Court judge in Niagara Falls.
The essence of the Conservative Party argument is that the commission creation by the New York State legislature represented an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. This commission, consisting of nine unelected members, was given authority to create, rewrite or eliminate election laws. This power, in the Conservative Party’s view and by simple logic, is reserved for a body that has been elected by the people.
The party also noted, and the judge appeared interested in, the failure of commission members to sign oaths of office as required by law, swearing that they would uphold the constitution and laws of the State of New York. These documents were required to be filed in or around early August. They were apparently filed in late November, a few weeks after the Conservative Party complained at a public hearing of the commission that its members had not executed the oaths in a timely fashion.
There have been a number of cases statewide over the years that have resulted in local officials being removed for not filing within the required 30-day period.
If the Conservative Party is successful, the attempt by Cuomo and Democratic Party Chairperson Jay Jacobs to reduce the number of third parties will come to an end. Also, the $100 million scheme to use taxpayer dollars to fund politicians’ political campaigns will be severely set back.