Impeach Bush?

Antipitas,

I am not going to say I agree with telecaster, but I will say that as far as the 9/11 investigations go they were never completed. Stage one was completed but stage two was blocked by the white house.

Regarding the war, congress did authorize him to declare war (which is not technically legal) but if he presented false information to congress willingly that is a crime.

Also, when he was called upon to testify in front of the 9/11 commision he and Cheney where smart enough to refuse to be under oath since they knew they were presenting false information but according to some sources I have read the PA I and II made it illegal to present false testimony to any govt representative whether under oath or not. In that case they would still be guilty of perjury.

As for crimes he committed before getting elected such as drunk driving, drup possession, etc...going into someones past like that is kind of petty. People knew these things when they elected him.
 
"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."

Why argue at all? Debating is much more civilized.

John
 
Shouldn't FDR have been impeached for trying to pack the Supreme Court; illegally incarcerating Japanese-American citizens, etc., etc.??

Johnson carried on the Vietnam nonsense way past the reasonable point of diminishing returns. Ever hear the transcripts of his conversations with Sen. Russell?

GWB won't be impeached. The DemocRATs are airheads, but not THAT airheaded.
 
I identify with David Kopel, Law Profs. Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh. I almost always agree with Justice Thomas and sometimes with Justice Scalia.
Click to expand...

Oh, my achin' back...you're a Statist Republican, who fancies himself an independent conservative.

Let's see..You agree with the Patriot Act?

You agree with the phone "War on Terrr"?

Thomas and Scalia are Republican shills who tow the Republican line...

Give it a rest, will you....

Your answers to my off-the-cuff assertions tell all that needs to be told..

Whoops....I'm about to get myself banned from "The Firing Line" for speaking plainly.....

Surprise, surprise......Typical....

Right...the Volokh Conspiricy and that Kopel website...

I don't think so....If you agree with Scalia you're Statist...period.
 
To try to get this thread back on track, I'd be wary of empeaching Bush because, as Air Force Shooter stated, Cheny would be President (if he's not pulling the strings already) and in the event they both are impeached, the job of President falls to the (shudder) Speaker of the House. That begs the question, 'Why is Pelosi not pushing for empeachment?' It would be the ultimate power grab, if there was anything to the Left-Right paradigm. Something to consider IMO.

badbob
 
To try to get this thread back on track, I'd be wary of empeaching Bush because, as Air Force Shooter stated, Cheny would be President (if he's not pulling the strings already) and in the event they both are impeached, the job of President falls to the (shudder) Speaker of the House. That begs the question, 'Why is Pelosi not pushing for empeachment?' It would be the ultimate power grab, if there was anything to the Left-Right paradigm. Something to consider IMO.

badbob
Click to expand...
Heh I'd rather have Pelosi take over than Ted "Series of tubes" Stevens. We'd probably end up with another 250 million dollar bridge from his house to the grocery store.
 
57 Telecaster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Antipitas was kind enough to point out and even annotate your inability to accurately identify the problem in question, in this case an impeachable offense. Apparently you have mistaken this favor for a defense of some kind. If we cannot accurately identify a problem, then we cannot hope to construct any kind of productive solution. Some people want to be productive.


57 Telecaster said:
I can say that if Bill Clinton deserved the proctological examination the Republicans gave him,
Click to expand...
Clinton probably did not desereve anywhere near the scrutiny he recieved over the Monica Lewinski embarassment. However, he was stupid enough to perjure himself. He deserved to be impeached for perjury.
 
This gets crazy at times, I want a safe America, I don't want to have to worry WHEN the next 9 11 happens. Politics have been argued for more years than I can remember. All I can say is if you are willing to kiss every butt you disagree with or to keep peace, your nose is going to smell bad. This is America,, why not protect her rather than the continous fights. If we as Americans could just get down to one idiolgy, we would be the power we think we are. We as a Nation are self destructive, and I am sure it soon will happen to us. I just know,, someday we will have another 911 and all the bitching about listening to cell phone calls of known terrorists will become,,,, why didn't you listen to more of them now that Washington is gone, you should be impeached because you didn't do enough. We have enjoyed freedom to the point of insanity. We no longer understand what we face in this world. I guess I am glad I am old,, I won't probably see much of what we have brought down on ourselves. I just wonder how the pacifists are going to handle it and not be slaves. Hell, I am quiting... there is no way to convince Dems of what is smart and needed to protect our way of life,, I hope they enjoy the life they want and will most likely get..In servitude to a government or some other Country
 
ISP2605, No I did not forget my High School Civics, I quit School in the 8th grade and joined the Navy! Therefore I never had High School Civics Classes!
 
An oath of office is not an oath or affirmation given before testifying.
Click to expand...

But it is a requirement before a candidate "enters office" and it is done at inauguration in public, administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Congress which will hear any impeachment.

The House and Senate try a President for failure to fulfill his duties pursuant to the oath or affirmation he makes.

For some reason, you feel something is ONLY consitutional, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling on it. In fact, you have stated that in the past in several posts.

If you will read the entire Constitution in order, (Articles I thru VII, followed by the Bill of Rights) you will see that the People of the United States are the final decision makers on law, not the Supreme Court. If not, the jury would not exist, and a judge would be the sole decision maker in all matters. Obviously, the founders did NOT intend to commit that error, as they intended to deliver a system of governent "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

That concept has been taken from us by the legal industry, and we have been conned into accepting it.

But do you notice that the Supreme Court stil does not decide removal from office, rather the Senate does? The Senate makes up the jury for the People in such cases, with the Chief Justice overseeing the process But the Senate serves the function of the Jury for the People, and it has the FINAL say on Guilt, and the FINAL say on removal from office.

So your idea that if a President swears the oath before the House, Senate and entire Supreme Court before he enters office, who later intentionally disregards the Constitution he swore to uphold does not constitute perjury, neglects the entire intent that the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution itself, exists to maintain their intention of a balance of powers in our government.

Intentionally violating that oath, in order to intentionally violate the Constitution's mandates ,does in fact constitute perjury in the minds of many, Americans, regarless of whether you or fifty thousand law school graduates disagreee.

As a People, we expect our elected President to at minimum, keep his oath. Now a lot of slick lawyers such as Bill Clinton might want to argue that it depends on what your definition of "preserve" means, but a ten year old knows that to "preserve" means to maintain as is. And violating an Article, and passing something into law in direct violation of that article, is not "preserving" the article.

(Because a lot of pointy headed lawyers later claim it sets a "precedent" and pretty soon, you have things such as the McCain Feingold, and John Warner Defense Authorization Acts")
 
"Bush has already impeached himself, and will continue to do so."

Can you predict the Lotto numbers for this week too? ;)
_________________________________________________________


"But it is a requirement before a candidate "enters office" and it is done at inauguration in public, administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court"

Chief Justice? Not true.

George Washington - oath administered by Robert Livingston, Chancellor of State of New York

John Tyler - William Cranch, Chief Judge of U.S. Circuit Court

Chester Arthur - John R. Brady, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court

Theo. Roosevelt - John R. Hazel, U.S. District Judge for Western District of New York

C. Coolidge - John C. Coolidge, his father, a Notary Public

LBJ - Sarah T. Hughes, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Texas
 
I wish.

But if I recall from the last impeachment, the word means literally to "grab by the heel", presumably to stop in his tracks. Looks like that's pretty much happened, whether formally or not.
 
No he should not be impeached...

a President can't be impeached because people don't like him and those of you who are saying he violated the Constitution are ridiculous. If that is the case then any President who has ever signed a weapons ban into law (Clinton) should have been impeached because he "violated the Constitution"!:rolleyes: Give me a break. These days the paper the Constitution is written on is legally worth about as much as the paper we wipe or backsides with. I hate it, but that's the way it is. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. How many times have our rights been "infringed" upon? You tell me!
 
I shouldn't get into this, but it seems that no one is going to solve this in any way, shape, or form. I do not believe any one, is going to be stupid enough to try to Impeach the President, during a war time footing, that would be a very bad idea, no matter what else you think, it just would be the one thing our enemies, would love to see happen and it would totally undermine the war effort, I don't care what you think about President Bush one way or the other but I do care about the Military Forces in harms way, as should you all, the Election is over and there is only two years left of this Administration, so I would suggest you get over it and move on.
 
a President can't be impeached because people don't like him
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

A president was just impeached because "people" didn't like him. Those "people" happened to have access to $100,000,000 and a rabid, pornographic, zipper-snatching special prosecutor on the job for years to finally turn up something over which to impeach him.

But, to be clear, I don't think Bush needs formal impeaching. He's already been informally impeached.
 
badbob said:
An MSNBC asks the question "Should Bush Be Impeached?" 87% of the 316312 respondents say yes, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I am sure the same 87% believe redeploying our Iraq troops to Okinawa is an equally bad idea but you will never hear MSNBC devoting a poll to that sort of mindset...

MSNBC: Celebrating our sponsor, the DNC, for 10 years!
 
Antipitas said:
An oath of office is not an oath or affirmation given before testifying.
Gary Conner said:
But it is a requirement before a candidate "enters office" and it is done at inauguration in public, administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Congress which will hear any impeachment.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a requirement that the President-elect swear or affirm the oath before actually taking office. That's as far as it goes, however. How this is done, before what witnesses and who is to administer the oath is not specified by the Constitution (What we see, every four years, is tradition in action). Your entire argument that this is done in some kind of courtroom drama is without foundation or merit. The Constitution simply mandates the oath be taken. Period.
The House and Senate try a President for failure to fulfill his duties pursuant to the oath or affirmation he makes.
Click to expand...
This is where you go wrong.

Under Art. II section 4, the "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It's a two step process.

The House debates the issue (Art. I section 2 clause 5) and if in its judgment (the act of formulating the accusation), finds a crime has been committed, sends a Bill of Impeachment to the Senate. At this point, the person of interest has been impeached. In the Senate, a trial is held on the Bill of Impeachment (Art. I section 3 clauses 6 and 7). There are only two outcomes possible for this trial. If a verdict of guilty is rendered, then removal from office is the result. Or the person may be acquitted, in which case the Bill of Impeachment is rendered null.

Since the Legislature has never passed a law that makes it a crime to violate ones oath of office, the President (or any other civil officer) may not be impeached upon those grounds.

I can't make it any more simple than that. That is why I wanted some of you to articulate the actual crime that has been committed, that makes for an impeachable offense.
For some reason, you feel something is ONLY consitutional [sic], if the Supreme Court makes a ruling on it. In fact, you have stated that in the past in several posts.
Click to expand...
I think you have misremembered what I have long said. To be explicit:

Any law passed by the Congress and signed by the President (or by default, the failure of the President to sign) is presumed to be Constitutional, until the SCOTUS declares the law not to be Constitutional. This literally means, that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means... As they are the exclusive interpretors of the Law as it applies to the Constitution.

It has been this way since Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). The only way to change that is to amend the Constitution and explicitly spell out the Judicial Power, as granted under Art. III.

The rest of your tirade is just your opinion on the way things ought to be.
 
Regarding the oath of office dictated by the Constitution, Antipitas said...

Yes, it is a requirement that the President-elect swear or affirm the oath before actually taking office. That's as far as it goes, however.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. It doesn't mean anything relative to fulfilling the office. I see what you are saying. You're saying since a court ruled that it means nothing, then it means nothing. I see.

And all this time I thought the Constitution's mandate that a Candidate swear or affirm to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution when fulfilling his duties, meant he was bound by it. I mistakenly thought it was an oath to the people, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Now I understand. It's a saying, or kind of a throw away line, on the same par with telling your grocery check out lady, to "Have a nice Day!"

Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top