Impeach Bush?

Antipitas:

The legal definition of perjury is:
–noun, plural -ries. Law. the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

Many feel that swearing of that oath, administered BY the Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in the very presence of the House and Senate members the Constitution mandates to be the jury hearing any impeachment, consitutes perjury if that oath is intentionally violated.

But you being a legal expert, only seem to believe that violating an oath in front of a Government Employee named as a Judge, is perjury.

If you are correct in your post above, (that violation of the oath of office in "not even a crime") then the Constitution itself, the oath, and the system of Government laid out in that document would be totally barren.

I just disagree with you. Although I was pretty much correct in predicting a "parsing" of statements was forthcoming.
 
I have one other comment on the signing of the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law, and the President stating that he thought it was illegal, I thought it was to clue the Supreme Court, into taking the new law and review it, to infact see if it was a Constitutional Law, which upheld the muster of being Constitutional or not, which I thought was the job of the Supreme Court, to Challenge, or to Strike down, any law that was Unconstitutional. But then I am probably wrong, it just seems that the responsibility was totally ignored by all concerned.

And one other point I might make, just because a President is unliked or not popular isn't grounds for impeachment, besides if the State of Mass. can continually re-elect two Criminal Senators to the Senate of the United States, which have both commited acts of treason against the United States of America, would be far worse than anything that Bush has, or has not done in my humble opinion.
 
which I thought was the job of the Supreme Court, to Challenge, or to Strike down, any law that was Unconstitutional. But then I am probably wrong, it just seems that the responsibility was totally ignored by all concerned.
Click to expand...
The USSC does just "taking the new law and review it, to infact see if it was a Constitutional Law,". Someone has to file to get it before the USSC. There's a long legal procedure that has to be followed before it gets to the USSC. Did you forget your high school civics?
 
Antipitas said:
Regardless, anyone care to name just one high crime or misdemeanor that would be an impeachable offense? Please back up your claim with a cite to the relevent federal law violated.
Click to expand...

I think the President's decision to deny two real ****heaps, Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, their rights as US citizens is an impeachable offense. It doesn't matter that I wouldn't piss on either of them if they were on fire. The protection of our rights is that important. I don't think any of the other mistakes he's made are impeachable offenses.
 
Sen Jon Conyers

Was leading the band wagon and a web site to Impeach Bush before the election. Today in an interview, He said just like Pelosi, That he will not pursue it. Why the turnaround? They are all complicit in taking away the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, putting the National Guard under fed control, and the detainee act. They made deals before the elections and had the vote count electronically done. Same junk, new faces, now they will try to ban guns. If you want to sign a petition for impeachment, go to www.peaceandspace .com We will have to Impeach all of them, though.:mad:
 
Gary, I'm glad you posted that definition. An oath of office is not an oath or affirmation given before testifying.

Gary said:
Many feel that swearing of that oath...
Click to expand...
Feel? How you or I or even many feel about something, does not an illegal act make.

As much as I would like to agree with you, the only oath (of office) that I know of that carries a criminal penalty of any kind, is the one you give when you enlist in the military. And even that is only a violation of article 134, UCMJ - the general article. That aside, Congress would have to pass legislation making the violation of the oath of office a crime... Something it has never done. Something it will never do. It is not in their own self-interest to pass any such legislation. Could you imagine the consequences? Sorry. They won't do it... simply to protect their own hides.
But you being a legal expert, only seem to believe that violating an oath in front of a Government Employee named as a Judge, is perjury.
Click to expand...
Legal expert? Thanks for the vote of confidence... Oh!... You meant that as sarcasm, yes? Nevertheless - No. I just do a lot of reading and have argued with those taking law. Lost a lot of arguments, because I didn't understand the process.

So, to answer the unspoken question in the above, I refer you to the very definition you gave. Violation of an oath of office is not perjury.
Although I was pretty much correct in predicting a "parsing" of statements was forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Nothing was "parsed," Gary.
Mad Martigan said:
I think the President's decision to deny two real ****heaps, Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, their rights as US citizens is an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But the SCOTUS has resolved the Hamdi issue and the administration resolved the Padilla issue. Added to this, the new law protects Padilla from being transferred back to military authority.

So I ask again, what crime has Bush committed that would allow for impeachment?
 
Antipitas said:
Possibly. But the SCOTUS has resolved the Hamdi issue and the administration resolved the Padilla issue. Added to this, the new law protects Padilla from being transferred back to military authority.

So I ask again, what crime has Bush committed that would allow for impeachment?
Click to expand...

I think both resolutions are irrelevant at this point. The damage was done. The rights were denied. Subsequent resolution doesn't change that. In other words, the crime in question was committed and ending the criminal act at some point later in time does not "uncommit" the crime. I could see some wiggle room in this are maybe if it had been a complicated situation. In my mind, it was anything but.

IF they are citizens,
THEN they get the protection of our treasured rights.

Very simple, very black and white, no confusion. In my opinion it is wholly unacceptable to do something like this without consequence.
 
What crime has Senor Shrub commited?

Gross incompetence and neglect of duty.

Complicity in the commission of an aggressive act of war.

Complicity in torture.

Willful neglect of duty in the investigation in the true causes of a Federal crime (9/11).

Violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Using the office to protect and shield (through his office) possible violators of the law (where the hell can one begin...).

Conspiracy to commit unlawful acts.

Violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Violation of his oath to protect and defend the borders of the United States from foreign invasion ( gross neglect to protect the southern border).

Failure to pursue the investigation of Federal crimes by members of the Executive branch (BATF, FBI, et al).

AWOL while a member of the armed services.

Unlawful possession of controlled substances (before he became only a dry drunk and still did drugs).

If I did any research whatsover I could come up with others.
 
Impeach Congress.

Pass a Constitutional amendment that the
Congressional payscale will be equal to the mean wage of the average public school teacher.

Go to the Texas system: Congress works three months, and that's it.

Pass another amendment, requiring the budget to be reduced 1% a year, for the next 50 years.

Another amendment, reversing the one enabling income tax by the Federal government.

S
 
OK, Telecaster. Let's take them, one at a time, shall we?

Gross incompetence and neglect of duty.
Incompetence is not a crime. Neglect of duty? When, where? Be specific.

Complicity in the commission of an aggressive act of war.
Authorized by the Congress of the United States. Not a crime.

Complicity in torture.
When and where were these charges filed? They weren't?

Willful neglect of duty in the investigation in the true causes of a Federal crime (9/11).
Said investigation was conducted by a duly authorized commission and accepted by the Congress. Where was the neglect?

Violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
As stated elsewhere, this is not a criminal offense.

Using the office to protect and shield (through his office) possible violators of the law (where the hell can one begin...).
At the beginning, of course. Who were these "possible" violators? What "possible" violations (i.e. criminal actions) did these people commit?

Conspiracy to commit unlawful acts.
Pretty vague, there. What unlawful acts?

Violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Not a criminal offense. But supposing... Which specific violations?

Violation of his oath to protect and defend the borders of the United States from foreign invasion ( gross neglect to protect the southern border).

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where in the above oath, does it contain any reference to the borders? It doesn't? Then by what measure is this a crime?

Failure to pursue the investigation of Federal crimes by members of the Executive branch (BATF, FBI, et al).
You're really stretching here. What crimes have occurred since Bush was elected President?

AWOL while a member of the armed services.
An allegation that has never been proven. Even so, it is way past any statute of limitations for any prosecutions.

Unlawful possession of controlled substances (before he became only a dry drunk and still did drugs).
As above, such allegations are way beyond any prosecutors reach.

There is only one crime that is actually specified by the Constitution. All other federal crimes are by statute enacted by the Legislature.

Some of you, I'm sure would like to get Bush on Treason. That's a real tough one, however:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So tough, that even Hanoi Jane couldn't be convicted. I think we can all agree that if ever there was a candidate for such a charge, she would qualify...
 
QUOTE; "and that's before the first million is spent investigating, and before all the liberal media have had a chance to reach into Bush's zipper."

I say let the liberal media have a chance to reach into bush's zipper! Who cares? They aint gonna find nothing there.
 
I Really Wish Someone Would Go After Congress. After Authorizing The War, They Use It As A Political Football, And, Undermine Our Military, Playing Sophistic Tricks, For Political Gain.

S
 
Antipitas:

You are a Bush apologist. I do not argue anymore (especially via the internet) with Bush apologists, nor do I argue with the Socialists that seek to defend the Democratics. You see, those who seek to defend one or the other are merely playing into the false Hegelian dialectic that purports that these two parties represent the opposites of the political spectrum. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two parties represent only the two wings of the "Boot On Your Neck" party...both of which revile personal freedom and champion the power of the State.

I can say that if Bill Clinton deserved the proctological examination the Republicans gave him, then even a cursory examination of the actions of the current executive branch in many of the areas that I listed off the top of my head would uncover relatively indictable offences. [As just one example read Lt. Col. (ret) Karen Kwitkowski's work in the Pentagon in the Office of Special Projects (I believe that is the name of the program...if not, it's very close) and the doctoring of intelligence data in the selling of the Iraq invasion.] If Bill Clinton's impeachment was warranted during his administration , then the administration of GW Bush's actions of greater consequence to the nation deserve far more. Oh...and I voted for Bush (both of them)...and against Clinton. One could make the same accusations of a decrepit Congress...and their abrogation of duty to even inspect the disgusting Patriot Act before it was passed. It goes on..and on...

The hubris of the imperial Republican party (the party to which I was once active..incredible...) deserves the fate once reserved for failed imperial Roman leaders.

Instead listening to Fox news, or being Freepers, or Democratic Underground, more citizens should read a bit from www.LewRockwell.com, or other such websites.

Edited to add: You would do well to read, Antipitas, on the Security and Properity Agreement, signed by his Lordship in 2005, between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. FEDGod. If that isn't treason (excluding the denotation you present), what is?
 
Last edited:
Telecaster,

If we impeached Presidents over everything they do that someone questions or dislikes, we couldn't keep a President in the White House. (hmmm, that might not be such a bad idea after all)
 
Clinton was, and is, a sleaze. People have a habit of turning up dead around him, alot. Other people end up doing time, while he lives in a huge office, paid for by the taxpayers, and uses his position for sexual favor.

Clinton failed to support the correct side in Bosnia, supporting the Muslims rather then the Christians. Aren't we still in that quagmire, only overshadowed by Iraq?

At some point in time, we will determine that certain folks are better off dead, and, deserve their fate. We don't need to help one side or the other, unless they attack us, or are our allies.

Still Bill, pick the right side...

And, he failed to get Bin Laden. What about the AWB?

etc.

S
 
57 Telecaster said:
Antipitas: You are a Bush apologist.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's really rich!

You haven't been around long enough to judge anything I type. Try doing a search on some of the things I speak on.

Regardless, I'm an Independent conservative. I don't think there's much difference between the two parties. Despite what their platforms say, their actions are almost identical.

I identify with David Kopel, Law Profs. Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh. I almost always agree with Justice Thomas and sometimes with Justice Scalia. I'm still making my mind up with Roberts and Alito... But leaning towards dislike of Roberts.

I was against (and still am) the Iraqi war. But we're there. We need to quit pussy-footing around and get the job done... As in, "Unleash The Hounds of War."

So, come up with a bonifide impeachable offense or quit yer whinin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top