Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It can't be argued that Consitutional Scholars are in serious discussions about Bush's actions... and whether he has now crossed into the area of "impeachable offenses." I agree with the general consensus that it would be more trouble than it is worth and we only have 560 days left to endure him anyway, so let's just suck it up until we can get a real leader back in power again. This article provides a nice synopsis.
Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail, something I have written about in these pages [see Holtzman, "Torture and Accountability," July 18/25, 2005]. These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate.
As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.
Are you at all aware of Ms. Holtzman's activities? Not only is she not a Constitutional scholar, she is extremely far-left and a vengeful person,(ask Geraldine Ferraro), but she has been caught lying during an investigation into a payoff scandal concerning Fleet Bank, when she borrowed money to finance the attack ads against Ms. Ferraro. Maybe you should provide a more credible source for any administration crimes.
Are you at all aware of Ms. Holtzman's activities? Not only is she not a Constitutional scholar, she is extremely far-left and a vengeful person,(ask Geraldine Ferraro), but she has been caught lying during an investigation into a payoff scandal concerning Fleet Bank, when she borrowed money to finance the attack ads against Ms. Ferraro. Maybe you should provide a more credible source for any administration crimes.
My apologies. She is not a Consitutional Scholar, she is writing about what Consitutional Scholars are discussing. There are an abundance of diverse constitutional scholars, legal experts, and academics that have provided their opinions that Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Google it and go. May I humbly express that these claims go beyond "far-left and vengeful" people? Did you bother to read the excerpt? Are you suggesting Bush and Cheney have not overstepped their Constitutional boundaries of authority? Is everything just "a-ok" from your perspective??
Funny that you listed the exact offense that Clinton committed, yet you fail to mention an impeachable offense by either in this administration.
I may have forgotten a few but let's assume you are completely unaware of the news or have not investigated the issues in question:
Gonzales: Either lied to Congress under subpoena and therefore committed perjury OR, if he didn't lie and truly has no idea what is happening in his office, then he's incompetent. Either are impeachable offenses.
Cheney: Where to begin? Refuses to obey a Presidential directive requiring handling of classified documents, insists he has powers to create presidential-level military commissions when the Supreme Court has rules he doesn't, has authorized the use of torture thus violating ratified treaties the United States is party to, refuses to give evidence subpoenaed by Congress, authorized the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, has the shocking nerve to declare his office is not part of the Executive branch yet he claims Executive privilege when it suits him, and all of this is in complete contravention of the Constitution which enumerates no powers to the office of Vice President beyond succession and acting as President of the Senate; illegally revealed a covert intelligence operative of the CIA.
Bush: Allows Gonzales to keep his job, refuses to force Cheney to abide to his Constitutional office or even obey Presidential directives, entered into a war costing the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by lying to Congress and the people of the United states about the nature of the Iraqi threat and falsifying intelligence; has violated the Constitution in treatment of American detainees, and American citizens by authorizing unwarranted wiretapping and mail interception, manufactured the Downing Street memo, and grossly neglects the actions of others in the Executive branch.
Clinton: Perjured himself under oath in a court of law while in office.
All these men have sworn themselves to defend and uphold the very document their leader has described as, "...just a piece of Goddamn paper."
I believe these are impeachable offenses. As I have pointed out previously, Congress is free to impeach and remove a President for whatever Congress feels is a, "high crime or misdemeanor." That could be anything from jaywalking to wearing an ugly tie. The Constitution gives Congress that power under those very broad conditions. That they fail to act to defend the Constitution from those who are abusing and profiteering from it is revolting in the extreme.
I think it's a little too soon after the last witch hunt to start another.
That's what Congress is hoping people will think. I ask you though, would a police department refuse to arrest a criminal for robbing a bank that was robbed a few days before?
Time has nothing to do with enforcing the law, particularly not the supreme law of the land which must always be defended by all those sworn to do so.
Clinton's approval rating was in the mid 70s when he went to trial, Bush's is much less and people on the street are talking about impeachment where they didn't with Clinton. In this case there is more than adequate popular support to enact a removal of the President and Vice President.
Seems that about the same percentage that voted for Kerry wants to now impeach Bush. I think you could have asked the same question the day after the election and gotten the same result.
What a waste of time.
I think you're underestimating the "Reagan Democrats" that are starting to despise Bush. I voted for Bush twice, I voted for Dole, voted for Clinton (once), voted for Bush Sr. (once) wanted to vote for Reagan when I was a teenager (yes I'm old) and I now am starting to think Bush and Cheney need to be impeached. It doesn't matter that there is an election next year, or that the last President was impeached (which I agreed with). Each President gets a clean slate from which to screw up.
Sorry, but I'm calling bluff on all the liberal media and democrats. If they really have all the stuff they keep whining about on Bush and Cheney and don't have the balls to impeach them, then they are just as worthless as Bush and Cheney. I really didn't think Congress was capable of doing less than they were doing when the GOP was running it, but I'll be damned if they didn't prove me wrong.
I only wish we could get rid of the corrupt a$$clowns we have running the circus in DC and get at least a few respectable people that won't bow to lobbyists and political pressure. I'm afraid both sides are so corrupt that it will take a revolution to change America.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_Els
That's what Congress is hoping people will think. I ask you though, would a police department refuse to arrest a criminal for robbing a bank that was robbed a few days before?
Time has nothing to do with enforcing the law, particularly not the supreme law of the land which must always be defended by all those sworn to do so.
Clinton's approval rating was in the mid 70s when he went to trial, Bush's is much less and people on the street are talking about impeachment where they didn't with Clinton. In this case there is more than adequate popular support to enact a removal of the President and Vice President.
While I agree with much of what you say I just don't feel impeachment proceedings would benefit the country. Bush's one-trick-pony act with Iraq has ignored too many other problems as it is. I don't give a hoot about Bush or DR Strangelove but my fear is impeachment would only cause further delays in addressing other problems, I think it would cost us more than we would gain.
I don't think popular support is justification for removal from office and the legal reasons seem a little shaky at best. Being incompetent may not be enough, after all, despite his first term he did get reelected.
wanted to vote for Reagan when I was a teenager (yes I'm old) and I now am starting to think Bush and Cheney need to be impeached. It doesn't matter that there is an election next year, or that the last President was impeached (which I agreed with). Each President gets a clean slate from which to screw up.
Nice rundown Jason Els.
You call that old, I voted for Reagan twice and as much as I hate to say it Carter before that.
While I agree with much of what you say I just don't feel impeachment proceedings would benefit the country. Bush's one-trick-pony act with Iraq has ignored too many other problems as it is. I don't give a hoot about Bush or DR Strangelove but my fear is impeachment would only cause further delays in addressing other problems, I think it would cost us more than we would gain.
I don't think popular support is justification for removal from office and the legal reasons seem a little shaky at best. Being incompetent may not be enough, after all, despite his first term he did get reelected.
I understand that sentiment completely and I would agree with you were it not for the precedence it sets. Part of what is going on is a litmus test. Pelosi especially is counting that to be the mood of the people. I know she doesn't want impeachment however I'm a bit more skeptical as to why. History shows that parties who endorse impeachment of unpopular Presidents do well in the following elections so I don't think she's worrying about political backlash.
I suspect that Pelosi wants to see just how far things can be pushed before the people overwhelmingly demand action on the part of Congress. This is a test to see just what the people of the US will stand for. How much can Congress get away with without having to be answerable? How complacent is the population? How much can the President and Congress disregard? It's like dealing with a child. Children are very savvy that way. They know just how many times they can ignore Mom and Dad before they have to obey. As government has proven itself time and again, give them an inch and they will take a mile and send us the bill.
Impeachment and removal is a daunting process but it is the final guarantor of the sovereignty of law. If Bush and Darth Dick can get away with what they are doing then other occupiers of the office will have a precedence to cite when they want to do the same things. In time, people will just come to expect Congress to be another post-Julian Roman Senate and become used to the idea that this is the way things are.
There are important issues facing this country that must be addressed, I can't agree more. The issue of the rule of the people is however, one that won't go away with time or change in administration and it trumps every other issue the country faces.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
