Resolution for Trump Impeachment

To those thinking we shouldn't make a statement on this because it's not a state issue:

Texas is a component of the United States. It is wholly reasonable that we make a statement on behalf of Texas and Libertarians in Texas about what we think should happen. We can both make statements and do work. They are not mutually exclusive.

Texas is a border state. We have tons of legal residents here that could be subject to similar treatment and we should take a stand for them.
 
Scott Talley said:
While i agree with taking a stance against trump’s policies and lack of due process I think this resolution makes us look as ridiculous as the democrats so i will be a no but I wouldn’t be opposed to a more directed resolution against the administration’s deportation policies directly.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think a call for impeachment rather than leading with an alternative, liberty-based solution is going to look performative, hollow and tired. I think that will hurt, rather than help the party, and it won't move the needle toward an actual solution. I'm open to what that approach should be, but I don't think this is it.
 
If I’m reading the room correctly, folks are open to a resolution that denounces the Trump Administration’s suspension of due process but aren’t comfortable with a resolution that outright calls for impeachment.

Who then would be willing to workshop the resolution (should the vote fail) and present an alternative version at our meeting on May 3?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting we water this down. But if folks think it has performative feel to it, I’d willing to spend some time with a few of you to reach an amended version.
 
Jessi Cowart said:
If I’m reading the room correctly, folks are open to a resolution that denounces the Trump Administration’s suspension of due process but aren’t comfortable with a resolution that outright calls for impeachment.

Who then would be willing to workshop the resolution (should the vote fail) and present an alternative version at our meeting on May 3?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting we water this down. But if folks think it has performative feel to it, I’d willing to spend some time with a few of you to reach an amended version.
Click to expand...
I'm currently working with several members on alt language. I'll throw it to you and anyone else here who as expressed specific issues with the resolution as written.

Now or later (this issue will certainly still exist by the time of the meeting), as long as we take a position.
 
This use of a poem about Nazi Germany to drum up emotional support for your motion is disgusting and disrespectful. I do not stand with this tactic or condone it and it in no way reflects my beliefs, or the beliefs of sd 17.
 
This is exactly where we are now with the Trump Administration, whether Jacob wants to gloss over it or not. We are at the earliest stages of demonizing people in this country, and it's important to not let it go any further.

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

— Rev. Martin Niemöller
 
Anastasia Wilford said:
I'm currently working with several members on alt language. I'll throw it to you and anyone else here who as expressed specific issues with the resolution as written.

Now or later (this issue will certainly still exist by the time of the meeting), as long as we take a position.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A lot of folks (rightly) pointed out that the LP as a whole did not come out early nor often enough about the Covid shutdowns during Trump’s first term. Let’s not make a similar mistake now. We need to lead from the front on this.
 
Ted Brown said:
This is exactly where we are now with the Trump Administration, whether Jacob wants to gloss over it or not. We are at the earliest stages of demonizing people in this country, and it's important to not let it go any further.

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

— Rev. Martin Niemöller
Click to expand...
No, we literally are not at Nazi Germany Ted and to say otherwise is once again disgusting. I have no words for someone who thinks like this and would stoop to this level of intellectual dishonesty. Shame on you Ted
 
Jacob, I'm trying to avoid Nazi Germany. I'm not saying that Trump is a Nazi, and I don't think he is, but anyone can use Nazi-like techniques, since they were very effective in achieving their goals. Also, Chris Pohler was being sarcastic about not thinking we would gain new members from this resolution. FYI, I just had someone sign up for the Travis County FB group, and he said he was motivated by the impeachment resolution.
 
Jacob Bradley said:
No, we literally are not at Nazi Germany Ted and to say otherwise is once again disgusting. I have no words for someone who thinks like this and would stoop to this level of intellectual dishonesty. Shame on you Ted
Click to expand...
I understand your concern with invoking comparisons to Nazi Germany, but I think it’s worth asking—where do we draw the line for action? Is it when the windows break, or when the teeth are being sorted for gold? History doesn’t start with camps—it starts with rhetoric, with dehumanization, and with the normalization of state power used against “undesirables.”

Just recently, I was speaking with a local liberty-leaning Republican. We were discussing the larger scope of event in play. His conclusion stuck with me: the risk of sliding into something much worse is no longer 0.

That’s where I come from on this. I don’t believe we’re in fascism—but I do believe that trends toward authoritarianism don’t happen overnight. They happen when power is normalized, when those in charge defy the courts, and when targeting political dissent becomes administrative policy. At some point, we need to stop calling it “just politics” and start calling it what it is—unacceptable.

Invoking history isn’t about dramatizing the moment. It’s about recognizing patterns early enough to stand against them. That’s all this resolution asks us to consider.
 
Andrew Amelang said:
You may have already seen it, but Dave Roberson wrote up his legal thoughts in opposition to the resolution and posted the statement a couple of places on our Discord server. I make no comment on the strength of his argument, just drawing your attention to the fact it exists in light of your statement that you're open to hearing different perspectives.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Andrew. I saw Dave’s comments shortly after he posted them. While I welcome differing legal viewpoints, I was concerned by the tone and some of the characterizations used. As we’re discussing serious constitutional concerns, I believe it’s important that we stay focused on the substance—not the individuals raising issues. I initially set his comments aside, but since they’re being actively referenced in this conversation, I’ll take another look with that in mind.

Just for context, do we know what Dave’s legal specialty is, and whether his comments are being offered in a personal or professional capacity? That might help in understanding the framework he’s applying. I noticed several titles listed, including “attorney at law,” but nothing that clearly reflects a focus on constitutional or immigration law.

@Jacob Bradley since you referenced his document as well.
 
FYI, I shared my post on the Travis County FB page about the resolution to about 50 related FB groups, plus it was shared by many individuals. So far, the statistic is 4,593 views, with 149 likes, 49 loves, and only 9 laughs and 2 angries. Several people started following us. Comments have been mostly favorable, like "Libertarians finally have a spine."
 
Ted Brown said:
David Roberson is a tax attorney, and I'm not convinced that he knows what he is talking about here, since I have seen some different facts on social media. I asked our favorite criminal defense attorney, Mark Ash, for his opinion, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.
Click to expand...
He's a tax attorney, what does your legal interpretation from law school say about this?
 
Jacob Bradley said:
He's a tax attorney, what does your legal interpretation from law school say about this?
Click to expand...
Do attorneys usually comment on cases outside their specialty?

And I am still not clear if this is his personal or professional (and in what capacity) opinion. He listed a slew of titles, from attorney to secretary of LPTEXAS Bylaws committee and more. Is he speaking professionally in all of those capacities?

For me, I only use titles that are either relevant or on behalf I speak for.
 
Last edited:
Kenneth Feagins said:
Do attorneys usually comment on cases outside their specialty?
Click to expand...
I guess that would depend on what law school is like. Something tells me that you go to be a lawyer and pick a specialty at (or at least towards) the end). Seems like someone wouldn't go through all of law school only learning one type of law. But for what it's worth, I have it on good authority he finished first in his class in constitutional law and first ammendment law. That question would be like saying a ENT couldn't diagnose a ingrown toenail because it's not their specialty.
 
Jacob Bradley said:
I guess that would depend on what law school is like. Something tells me that you go to be a lawyer and pick a specialty at (or at least towards) the end). Seems like someone wouldn't go through all of law school only learning one type of law. But for what it's worth, I have it on good authority he finished first in his class in constitutional law and first ammendment law. That question would be like saying a ENT couldn't diagnose a ingrown toenail because it's not their specialty.
Click to expand...
As I understand, in the example you provided, immigration and constitutional law are specialties in their own right. I'm not a lawyer, so welcome clarity there. So to property set your analogy, I believe it would be that an ENT couldn't diagnose a brain tumor, as they are not an oncologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top