Impeachment bills against Prez Bush

nyc wrote:

to think that the constitution has power over popular opinion is the pure definition of ignorance.

If you're saying what I think you're saying you are really, really dumb. The Constitution is not subject to the whims of the populace, thank God.

nyc wrote:

You obviously do not understand the Constitution of the United States. The power of impeachment as vested in the Congress is not there so the people can remove the president because they hate him. Please educate yourself before posting ignorant crap here.

to think that the constitution has power over popular opinion is the pure definition of ignorance.[/quote]

wrong. The framers were extremely worried about democracy devolving into 'mob rule'. That's why we have representative government.

Don't forget, popular opinion supported the Iraq War before March of 2003. So under your litmus test, the President was simply doing what the population wanted him to do.

If the government had to respond to public opinion at any moment, the country would be ungovernable. The people are heard - it's called an election. They happen every 2 to 6 years, depending on the office.

Since you seem to be a big fan of popular opinion, it's a good thing the issue of racial segregation wasn't put decided on popular opinion. Luckily we had courageous elected leaders who stood up to popular opinion in States like Alabama and made segregation illegal.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

sec4coach wrote:

A group of Social Studies teachers saw this coming in 1999. He would fool enough people to win and then destroy the nation.

Hahahaha....

A group of social studies teachers.

What... like 7th grade social studies? Or 8th grade? That's some heavy shit right there.....

[quote]Mtn Dew wrote:

The Plame thing is grossly overstated. Plame wasn't some clandestine agent, she worked a desk job and her identity wasn't a huge secret. Libby is in trouble for lying, not teling her identity. quote]

Yes, I know Richard Armitage at the State Department was the leaker. But I can't get in the newspapers and continue my witch hunt if I don't go after Cheney's evil minions.

Where's the Katrina Impeachment Bill? He did cause that hurricane because he hates blacks right?

How come Valerie Plame hasn't made the Hotness Thread? She qualifies.

Christ. Do you people really not know what impeachment is? What are you guys blabbering on about throughout this thread.

IMPEACHMENT: The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.

For everyone accusing other people of being "unaware of how the united states constitution functions," or "ignorant," you've all been focusing on the idea that IMPEACHMENT is the removal of a president from office. It isn't the removal of a president from office...that may be a result of trials of impeachment, but it isn't what impeachment actually is. 3 pages this has taken up...didn't anyone pay attention during 7th grade social studies?

Congratulations. You found your way to the Declaration of Independence. That declared why we were breaking from England and King George III. The Constitution enumerates the powers of government and is what must be referred to when contemplating Impeachment of the president. Try again.

Chris Hall wrote:

Christ. Do you people really not know what impeachment is? What are you guys blabbering on about throughout this thread.

IMPEACHMENT: The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.

For everyone accusing other people of being "unaware of how the united states constitution functions," or "ignorant," you've all been focusing on the idea that IMPEACHMENT is the removal of a president from office. It isn't the removal of a president from office...that may be a result of trials of impeachment, but it isn't what impeachment actually is. 3 pages this has taken up...didn't anyone pay attention during 7th grade social studies?

I know exactly what Impeachment is, even before you Googled it.

Article I Section 2 (para 5): The The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment

Article I Section 3 (para 6): The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments

Impeachment is commonly used to mean the referral and trial of articles of impeachment.

i dont think the words bush and intelligence should be in the same sentence unless there is a negative

an average iq is 100

retardation is 60-70s

clinton was 190 something

Bush's IQ is 92

Geoffrey wrote:

an average iq is 100

retardation is 60-70s

clinton was 190 something

Bush's IQ is 92

chances of this being true: 0

i've just perused this amusing thread, but one comment i have is to the person who lauded our courageous elected officials for ending segregation. it wasn't really our elected leaders. it was the appointed members of the u.s. supreme court who overturned their earlier case law (brown v. board overturning plessy v. ferguson if i remember correctly).

sometimes you need unelected judges with the security of life tenure to make the difficult, just decisions (see brown). sometimes those same unelected judges with life tenure reinforce the bad or make things worse (see plessy, arguably lockner, arguably roe v.wade).

To whomever was bitching about Bush suspending habeas corpus on the 2nd page, have you ever read through the Constitution? Oh yea...the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a PRIVILEGE!

Article 1, Section 9. 2nd paragraph..."The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Get that? It's a privilege, NOT a right.

Clinton 190 something? HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks for the good laugh!

Holy sh!t you are the worst kind of smarmy a$$ed know-it-all.

Someone may have Googled a little, you just Google a little more. Impressive.

The Impeachment process was concieved for the exact circumstance we now find ourselves in.

Just because GW will be out by the time anything happens doesnt mean the House and the Senate shouldn't do their jobs.

Yes this has already been pointed out, still doesn't let the House off the hook for NOT doing it's job.

Impeachment can lead to conviction, as in Nixons case, he just resigned and got a quicky pardon. What Nixon did pales in comparison to GW and Cheney (Rummy, Rice, and the cadre of dual passport zio freaks too), by far the worst (un)elected criminals this countery has ever seen.

Don't expect the house or senate to do shit you ignorant fools. What have the dumbass libs done since they've taken over?

Hint: JACK SHIT!

I wish the media would seat Bush and Cheney in an open area with their crotch visible to the cameras. Then film them as the squirm and twist their torso as they are questioned about impeachment. That would be a video of interest to many true men in America. Please do this. I plead.

OK Merle, since you're the know it all. Please list the crime (with US Code citation) that President Bush is guilty of.

The fact is the Impeachment power was never intended to be used as a political weapon. And that is exactly your motivation because you simply hate Bush.

Reluctant Philosopher wrote:

The argument against impeachment in the Clinton case is that he perjured himself in a civil matter that was not connected to the office of the presidency. Most scholars, but not all, interpret the impeachment clause of Article II Section 4 to be limited to crimes committed in capacity as president, in other words using the power of the presidency to engage in criminal activity (as Nixon did).

There is a lot of gray area here. If we elected someone in 2008 only to find out that in 1998 he murdered someone, should he be impeached?? It is difficult to imagine that the country could tolerate an accused murderer in the office for 3 more years. Fortunately, this hypothetical has not been tested.

What if we elected someone in 2008 only to find out in 2010 that he murdered someone? I'm not talking about some sort of war-power related action. I mean suppose a sitting president picked up a gun one day and randomly blew someone away. Do we consider this murder to be "not committed in his capacity as president"? If so, then would those same constitutional scholars would have to say we could not impeach him.

Ridiculous of course. Just, I think, as it would be to say that Clinton's perjury is not impeachable. When you are president, EVERY action is done in capacity as president. Clinton lied under oath while he was president.