PDA

View Full Version : CHIMPEACH!


Ugly Duck
07-06-2007, 07:39 PM
CHIMPEACH!

This new poll is gonna give Republicans electile dysfunction:


Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

7/5/07 ....Favor ....Oppose ....Undecided

All Adults ...45% ......46% .......9%
Voters .......46% ......44% .....10%

Democrats ...69% ......22% ......9%
Republicans ..13% ......86% ......1%
Independents.50% .....30% ....20%

3/15/06 ......42% ....49% .......9%


Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

7/5/07 ...Favor ....Oppose ....Undecided

All Adults ..54% ........40% .......6%
Voters ......50% ........44% .......6%

Democrats...76% ........24%
Republicans..17% ........83%
Independents.51% .......29% .....20%


http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

jAZ
07-06-2007, 09:02 PM
IIRC, the most public support the Republicans ever got for impeaching Clinton was 25-30%.

And they actually did it anyway.

Bush is at 45%!?!

Cheney at 54%!?!

About time.

recxjake
07-06-2007, 09:04 PM
ahhh.... do they realize that they have to charge them with something.....??!?!

I could care less about these two, they aren't running again, and besides Iraq, they have done a pretty good job.

jAZ
07-06-2007, 09:05 PM
ahhh.... do they realize that they have to charge them with something.....??!?!

I could care less about these two, they aren't running again, and besides Iraq, they have done a pretty good job.
Yeah, there's nothing to charge them with.

:rolleyes:

HolmeZz
07-06-2007, 09:06 PM
Cheney's so much more worse than Bush.

WoodDraw
07-06-2007, 09:07 PM
The House can't even end the war in Iraq, let alone impeach a President/VP. I'd like to see a more active Congress, but not in this war.

recxjake
07-06-2007, 09:12 PM
Immigration.... can't get done
Energy Bill.... can't get done
Social Security.... Can't get done
Health Care.... Can't get done


But hey, lets waste ever more time and money by trying to impeach people that will out of office 1 year and 6 months?

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2007, 09:28 PM
ahhh.... do they realize that they have to charge them with something.....??!?!

Hey! Who invited a logical question into this thread?

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Immigration.... can't get done
Energy Bill.... can't get done
Social Security.... Can't get done
Health Care.... Can't get done


But hey, lets waste ever more time and money by trying to impeach people that will out of office 1 year and 6 months?

It would give us the appearance that they're working on something.

Taco John
07-06-2007, 09:41 PM
Republican supporters have no credibility in a discussion criticizing a "do nothing" congress.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 09:48 PM
There one main reason I support impeaching Cheney at least...to prevent starting a new war with Iran. That's a very good reason imo.

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2007, 09:48 PM
Republican supporters have no credibility in a discussion criticizing a "do nothing" congress.

I welcome a "do nothing" Congress.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 09:51 PM
I welcome a "do nothing" Congress.
I generally do....but not to prevent a new war.

Ugly Duck
07-06-2007, 10:15 PM
I could care less about these two

Do you care that a majority of your fellow American voters want to impeach the Pres & VP? Don't you find that a rather momentous statistic?

Logical
07-06-2007, 10:54 PM
There one main reason I support impeaching Cheney at least...to prevent starting a new war with Iran. That's a very good reason imo.

Amen sister, preach it. Some strategic bombing and special forces missions yes, invasion hell no.

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Do you care that a majority of your fellow American voters want to impeach the Pres & VP?

No.

Don't you find that a rather momentous statistic?

Yes.

If a majority of my fellow Americans are silly enough to think that they can get a do-over on the 2000 and 2004 elections by wishing for impeachment, they are free to engage themselves in whatever form of political/legal masturbation they think will provide them their release.

Ugly Duck
07-06-2007, 11:05 PM
No.


OK... lemme spell it out for you. Rudy (the Republican frontrunner) luvs GW so much that he sez Bush is "one of the Great American Presidents." George Washington, Abraham Lincoln.... George Duhbya Bush. Meanwhile, back in reality, a majority of American voters think Bush is such a slobbering moran that he should be IMPEACHED. Do you think that horrendous disparity bodes well for the Republican frontrunner?

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 11:07 PM
Do you think that horrendous disparity bodes well for the Republican frontrunner?
No it doesn't but most who'd agree with this are not as detached from reality as the GOP is right now.

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2007, 11:08 PM
OK... lemme spell it out for you. Rudy (the Republican frontrunner) luvs GW so much that he sez Bush is "one of the Great American Presidents." George Washington, Abraham Lincoln.... George Duhbya Bush. Meanwhile, back in reality, a majority of American voters think Bush is such a slobbering moran that he should be IMPEACHED. Do you think that horrendous disparity bodes well for the Republican frontrunner?

No. But I also don't think the next election will be decided on which candidate believes what about Pres. Bush.

Logical
07-06-2007, 11:21 PM
Immigration.... can't get done
Energy Bill.... can't get done
Social Security.... Can't get done
Health Care.... Can't get done


But hey, lets waste ever more time and money by trying to impeach people that will out of office 1 year and 6 months?

This would have more power and effect had the former Republican led Congress accomplished something, especially since they did not have to worry about a Veto from the President.

Ugly Duck
07-06-2007, 11:38 PM
No. But I also don't think the next election will be decided on which candidate believes what about Pres. Bush.

But maybe... just maybe... the great divide of opinion between the majority of American voters and the Republican frontrunner is enough to cool any great enthusiasm for supporting him. Thats a large dang difference of opinion there.... Rudy thinks Bush is one of the Great American Presidents, the American voters think he's a piece of crap that should be booted out of the White house. A very large gap to be closed, eh? The leading Republican candidate is way out of touch with the people....

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2007, 11:44 PM
A very large gap to be closed, eh?

No. I don't think it's important at all.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 12:14 AM
Immigration.... can't get done
Energy Bill.... can't get done
Social Security.... Can't get done
Health Care.... Can't get done


But hey, lets waste ever more time and money by trying to impeach people that will out of office 1 year and 6 months?
Are you willing to acknowledge that the Republican political strategy WRT to this congress is to obstruct everything going through. The point is simply to block everything the Dems try to do.

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 12:23 AM
Yeah, there's nothing to charge them with.

:rolleyes:


Care to throw out a high crime or misdemeanor for our discussion?

Logical
07-07-2007, 12:48 AM
Care to throw out a high crime or misdemeanor for our discussion?


I bet you it would be easy to come up with a Cheney misdemeanor. Probably not so easy on getting to Bush.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 12:50 AM
Care to throw out a high crime or misdemeanor for our discussion?
First, impeachment is a purely political process. The jury is the House. As such, the definition of "high crime or misdemeanor" is irrelevant. They could ultimately claim that he chewed bubble gum the wrong way and impeach him and vote him out of office. Such is the nature of our system.

Having made the point that what rises to the levels you describe is up to the congress itself... a few examples are easy to come up with.

Bush has been subverting our Constitution, and has repeatedly violated his oath of office to “faithfully execute” his duties and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” in five areas:

1) Invading Iraq when they hadn't attacked us ("war of agression") is a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter and as a result Article VI of the US Constitution.
2) Numerous statements made in the build up to the war constitute a conspiracy to commit fraud.
3) The denial of due process to Jose Padilla and Yassir Hamzi (two US Citizens who were denied their rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
4) Violating the Geneva Convention at Gitmo and elsewhere (again violating Article VI of our Constitution in the process).

... and the easy one...

5) NSA Warantless Wiretaps (obviously)

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 09:34 AM
Care to throw out a high crime or misdemeanor for our discussion?
Per the Framers "high crimes and misdemeanors" were intended to be broad enough to embrace any serious misbehavior. It can also be used if the president has given false information or concealed important intelligence to the Senate regarding foreign powers. Impeachment is also designed to protect the country from incompetence. Removal from office is the only punishment not a jail sentence or a fine.

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 11:15 AM
First, impeachment is a purely political process.

No, it's a political and legal process.

The jury is the House. As such, the definition of "high crime or misdemeanor" is irrelevant. [/QUOTE]


The jury is the Senate. The house acts as a Grand Jury. However, the Senate does not act within the confines of a normal jury, limited to determining questions of fact. The Senate also, although not explicitly, validates or invalidates the charges.


They could ultimately claim that he chewed bubble gum the wrong way and impeach him and vote him out of office. Such is the nature of our system.

They could do that, if they could convince themselves that chewing bubblegum incorrectly was a high crime or misdemeanor.

Having made the point that what rises to the levels you describe is up to the congress itself... a few examples are easy to come up with.

Bush has been subverting our Constitution, and has repeatedly violated his oath of office to “faithfully execute” his duties and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” in five areas:

"violating his oath of office" is not a crime. Commission of a criminal act is not an absolute requirement, but in both previous impeachments it has been the basis for the charges.

1) Invading Iraq when they hadn't attacked us ("war of agression") is a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter and as a result Article VI of the US Constitution.

Article 2 of the UN Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit "wars of aggression". More to the point, the invasion of Iraq was ostensibly to enforce a UN mandate.

Your suggestion that UN Charter, or any other treaty, supercedes the Presidential authority granted under the Constitution is incorrect. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Assuming your initial statement, that impeachment is a purely political process, is correct. I would posit that an attempt to impeach an American President for a violation of the U.N. charter would not be politically astute.

2) Numerous statements made in the build up to the war constitute a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Bad intelligence and bad policy decisions are not crimes. Fraud has to be made knowingly.


3) The denial of due process to Jose Padilla and Yassir Hamzi (two US Citizens who were denied their rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments

Padilla and Hamzi may have a Sec 1983 claim, but that is a civil matter.


4) Violating the Geneva Convention at Gitmo and elsewhere (again violating Article VI of our Constitution in the process).

See #1

... and the easy one...

5) NSA Warantless Wiretaps (obviously)

The remedy for a warantless search is that the product of that search cannot be used against a defendant. There is no criminal penalty for illegal wiretaps any more than there is a criminal penalty for police officers who search a house without a warrant.


My point in this exercise is to suggest that forming a basis to impeach a democratically elected president is tougher than simply saying "we don't like him" or "I don't think he is doing a good job". The system is set up as a criminal proceeding, not a vote of no-confidence.

alanm
07-07-2007, 11:27 AM
I welcome a "do nothing" Congress.
Well it does certainly showcase the democrats. :)

stevieray
07-07-2007, 11:30 AM
My point in this exercise is to suggest that forming a basis to impeach a democratically elected president is tougher than simply saying "we don't like him" or "I don't think he is doing a good job". The system is set up as a criminal proceeding, not a vote of no-confidence.

considering this has appeared to always have been the mantra, it's not surprising that criminal charges have never surfaced against him.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 12:01 PM
My point in this exercise is to suggest that forming a basis to impeach a democratically elected president is tougher than simply saying "we don't like him" or "I don't think he is doing a good job". The system is set up as a criminal proceeding, not a vote of no-confidence.
Actually, it's setup as a purely political process where ultimately the President serves at the leisure of the 268 of Congresses 535 members. If those 268 agree that chewing bubble gum the wrong way is a "high crime". And the 5 things I listed are politically palletable as impeachable offenses (though some more than others).

Ugly Duck
07-07-2007, 12:01 PM
Impeachment is also designed to protect the country from incompetence. Sans Patty.... ain't too many is gonna argue with that one....

Hence a majority of American voters calling to dump the chump...

Donger
07-07-2007, 12:06 PM
80% of Americans believe that our government is hiding evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

That doesn't make them right...

jAZ
07-07-2007, 12:12 PM
80% of Americans believe that our government is hiding evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

That doesn't make them right...
Not only irrelevant, but not even analogous. There is an objective reality to the UFO thing. It's either true or false. Whether The impeachment of Bush/Cheney is an act of democracy which ultimately is tied to public opinion.

Ugly Duck
07-07-2007, 12:15 PM
80% of Americans believe that our government is hiding evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

Link?

Thats very curious...

Never mind.... found it:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

So I guess knowing that, now we can conclude that all polls are completely useless and that the tiny minority that support Bush are the only ones that are right...

Donger
07-07-2007, 12:33 PM
Not only irrelevant, but not even analogous. There is an objective reality to the UFO thing. It's either true or false. Whether The impeachment of Bush/Cheney is an act of democracy which ultimately is tied to public opinion.

The thread starter seemed to be putting some relevance in the opinion of the American public, by posting the results of a poll. I'm merely pointing out that their opinions aren't always founded in reality.

And, I didn't mention UFOs.

And, Bush won't be impeached.

Donger
07-07-2007, 12:36 PM
Link?

Thats very curious...

Never mind.... found it:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

So I guess knowing that, now we can conclude that all polls are completely useless and that the tiny minority that support Bush are the only ones that are right...

Not at all. Polls are worthwhile. For example, we know that 80% of Americans are idiots.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 12:39 PM
The thread starter seemed to be putting some relevance in the opinion of the American public, by posting the results of a poll. I'm merely pointing out that their opinions aren't always founded in reality.

And, I didn't mention UFOs.

And, Bush won't be impeached.
In this case reality is a derivative of public opinion... your example is terrible.

Donger
07-07-2007, 12:42 PM
In this case reality is a derivative of public opinion... your example is terrible.

The reality is that Congress will not start impeachment proceedings, regardless of the what the public (or you) wants. Just like the government won't release evidence of extra-terrestrial life, even though the people want it.

I was hopeful that you'd let go of your hate with the birth of your child. Seems that hope was misplaced.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 01:01 PM
The reality is that Congress will not start impeachment proceedings, regardless of the what the public (or you) wants. Just like the government won't release evidence of extra-terrestrial life, even though the people want it.
Public opinion doesn't impact whether or not there is any such evidence to give. Public opinion can impact whether Bush/Cheney were impeached.

I was hopeful that you'd let go of your hate with the birth of your child. Seems that hope was misplaced.
That's rich.

On a thread showing that 55% of the public agrees with my opinion, you have the audacity to call it "hate".

Donger
07-07-2007, 01:05 PM
Public opinion doesn't impact whether or not there is any such evidence to give. Public opinion can impact whether Bush/Cheney were impeached.

Actually, if the public demanded it, they could force the government to spill the beans about aliens. Think about it: 80%! of the people want it. Surely, they'll get their way, right?

That's rich.

On a thread showing that 55% of the public agrees with my opinion, you have the audacity to call it "hate".

There's a lot of hate out there, obviously. I know: I hated Clinton, but even I didn't want him impeached.

chagrin
07-07-2007, 01:18 PM
On a thread showing that 55% of the public agrees with my opinion

Not only does your arrogance know no boundaries, you are admitting that your political hope lies within poll results; typical lefty little man's complex, heh - That's the truth


If you asked Americans who actually know what they are talking about, that 55% you claim to be yours would shift drastically.
I can pick 150 people here in Florida the same questions, at least 55% of them would say the same thing you are, 100% of them would say that because they are uneducated sheep and will follow any loud speaking liberal who panders to their uneducated emotions, it doesn't make it correct or rational.


You should know better than that

jAZ
07-07-2007, 01:22 PM
Actually, if the public demanded it, they could force the government to spill the beans about aliens. Think about it: 80%! of the people want it. Surely, they'll get their way, right?



There's a lot of hate out there, obviously. I know: I hated Clinton, but even I didn't want him impeached.
50% more people watch Bush impeached than Clinton. Nearly double watch Cheney impeached.

But keep trying to marginalize.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 01:25 PM
is such a slobbering moran

And the 5 things I listed are politically palletable as impeachable offenses

LMAO Some truly "educated" libs speak out on the Planet. LMAO

Donger
07-07-2007, 01:32 PM
50% more people watch Bush impeached than Clinton. Nearly double watch Cheney impeached.

But keep trying to marginalize.

"watch" = "want" I take it?

80% (or double) the number of people who want Bush impeached want the government to acknowledge the existence of ET, too.

(perhaps jAZ is ssssslllllloooooowwwwwwlllllyyyy beginning to see my point)

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 01:34 PM
"watch" = "want" I take it?

80% (or double) the number of people who want Bush impeached want the government to acknowledge the existence of ET, too.

(perhaps jAZ is ssssslllllloooooowwwwwwlllllyyyy beginning to see my point)

M8, you are wasting your time trying to reason with a muppet. Kermit has more sense and better grammatical skills.

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 01:42 PM
Actually, it's setup as a purely political process where ultimately the President serves at the leisure of the 268 of Congresses 535 members. If those 268 agree that chewing bubble gum the wrong way is a "high crime". And the 5 things I listed are politically palletable as impeachable offenses (though some more than others).


I suppose you also believe that each of us is free to go about our daily lives only at the discretion of the local District Attorney and the whim of 12 citizens?


After a member of of the House proffers the charges, the Chair of the House Judiciary has to decide that it's something s/he wishes to calendar. Then the Judiciary can kill it, or send it to the entire House (21/40 votes). The Speaker of the House could circumvent the committee system and bring it directly to the floor of the House.

It's 218 votes (simple majority) required in the House to approve the articles of impeachment and 67 votes (2/3 majority) for the Senate to convict.

Logical
07-07-2007, 02:19 PM
LMAO Some truly "educated" libs speak out on the Planet. LMAO

UD purposely misspells moron as moran he always has done this in his posts.

Logical
07-07-2007, 02:21 PM
Actually, if the public demanded it, they could force the government to spill the beans about aliens. Think about it: 80%! of the people want it. Surely, they'll get their way, right?



There's a lot of hate out there, obviously. I know: I hated Clinton, but even I didn't want him impeached.
Link for proof please? I read UDs link and it does not state 80% of the people want it.

|Zach|
07-07-2007, 02:25 PM
Not only does your arrogance know no boundaries, you are admitting that your political hope lies within poll results; typical lefty little man's complex, heh - That's the truth


If you asked Americans who actually know what they are talking about, that 55% you claim to be yours would shift drastically.
I can pick 150 people here in Florida the same questions, at least 55% of them would say the same thing you are, 100% of them would say that because they are uneducated sheep and will follow any loud speaking liberal who panders to their uneducated emotions, it doesn't make it correct or rational.


You should know better than that
Chagrin, a man who never misses a chance to talk about how stupid he thinks everyone in this country is.

Donger
07-07-2007, 02:40 PM
Link for proof please? I read UDs link and it does not state 80% of the people want it.

ROFL

Donger
07-07-2007, 02:42 PM
I wonder how many of these 45% actually know the difference between being "impeached" and being "convicted and removed from office"?

Or, that President Pelosi would be the result. That is correct, yes? If Bush and Cheney were removed from office?

Donger
07-07-2007, 02:45 PM
So, has Nancy changed her mind, jAZ? You really should inform her of this poll:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 (UPI) -- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged not to pursue impeachment of President George W. Bush if Democrats win the November election.

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time," and suggested Republicans -- who have controlled the House for 12 years -- would make political hay out of it if Democrats tried to impeach Bush.

"Wouldn't they just love it if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth after 12 years is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 03:21 PM
My point in this exercise is to suggest that forming a basis to impeach a democratically elected president is tougher than simply saying "we don't like him" or "I don't think he is doing a good job". The system is set up as a criminal proceeding, not a vote of no-confidence.


Sorry but that is incorrect, per the words of our own Framers. Particularly Madison who wrote it.

It is NOT a criminal proceeding—at all.

It was means to replace an official instead of waiting for an election. It was something put there to keep officials under scrutiny. It is not the same as "crimes and misdemeanors" lawyers are familiar with. Should those also be committed, once removed from office, that official can be prosecuted criminally. Impeachment only removes the official from office as the penalty.

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 04:27 PM
Sorry but that is incorrect, per the words of our own Framers. Particularly Madison who wrote it.

It is NOT a criminal proceeding—at all.

It was means to replace an official instead of waiting for an election. It was something put there to keep officials under scrutiny. It is not the same as "crimes and misdemeanors" lawyers are familiar with. Should those also be committed, once removed from office, that official can be prosecuted criminally. Impeachment only removes the official from office as the penalty.


I said that "the system is set up as a criminal proceeding" not that it is a criminal proceeding. You are correct, insofar as a finding of guilty does not invoke double jeopardy protections. The distinction I was making is that impeachment is not, and never has been, a Constitutional equivalent of a no-confidence procedure found in many parlimentary systems.

As for the scope of "Treason, bribery and high crimes and other misdemeanors", it is not as broad as you and jAZ seem to suggest*. It was, in fact, James Madison, along with Governeour Morris, who successfully argued against George Mason's suggestion that "maladministration" be added to the list of impeachable offenses. Madison, and the framers felt that the branches of government should be independent and the President should not serve at the pleasure of the Senate and purposefully left "maladministration" out.

The terms "high crimes and misdemeanors" is often taken out of context. It is a complete phrase "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors", implying that other offenses, similar in nature or severity to treason or bribery, would be grounds for impeachment.

Although the legislature is not influenced by stare decisis, it should be noted that both previous Presidential impeachments were based on the violation of a specific statute, one criminal and not.


*Thus far in our Constitutional history it appears that the Senate is the final arbiter of what consitutes "other high crimes and misdemeanors". It seems that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to hear an appeal on procedural matters, including whether the charges met the definition. Whether the Supreme Court would overturn the Senate's ruling is another story.

Logical
07-07-2007, 04:31 PM
All of this is just an exercise in conjecture no matter how much time we spend on it. An Impeachment is not going to really occur.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 04:41 PM
All of this is just an exercise in conjecture no matter how much time we spend on it. An Impeachment is not going to really occur.
I agree it's unlikely—unless the American people do like they did on the immigration issue and show their support for it.

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 04:44 PM
All of this is just an exercise in conjecture no matter how much time we spend on it. An Impeachment is not going to really occur.


Unless something directly tied to GWB, like information that he used NSA wiretaps to get information from the John Kerry campaign, it's not going to happen.

However, it's still good exercise and an interesting discussion. What else are we supposed to do during the off season?

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 04:59 PM
As for the scope of "Treason, bribery and high crimes and other misdemeanors", it is not as broad as you and jAZ seem to suggest*.
I'm familiar with this pov, but I have to still disagree on this one point, it was meant to be liberally construed and was deliberately left very broad based on an original intentist pov. The reason "high crimes and misdemeanors" was used was because these were the most reprehensible and created serious military difficulties during the Revolution but it embraced practially any serious misbehavior while in office. It was for high crimes and misdemeanors in public office against the public...not in a criminal law sense. I'm not just talking about the actual procedure itself.

Can it be abused? Sure. Johnson simply angered the radical Pubs because he would not support their vindictive policies toward the South. He still got impeached.

Madison " Thought it indispensible that some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or prefidy of the chief magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service was not a sufficient security."

I have many more quotes from in particular, Iredell as well as Franklin, Hamilton, Johnston. Back then the remedy for replacing a leader was assassination or insurrections. This was a means to prevent such acts..

Logical
07-07-2007, 05:14 PM
Unless something directly tied to GWB, like information that he used NSA wiretaps to get information from the John Kerry campaign, it's not going to happen.

However, it's still good exercise and an interesting discussion. What else are we supposed to do during the off season?You have a point and I yield the floor. Of course you could be out running in prep for that marathon.:D

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 07:05 PM
You have a point and I yield the floor. Of course you could be out running in prep for that marathon.:D


You said this was an exercise. :shrug:

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 07:27 PM
I'm familiar with this pov, but I have to still disagree on this one point, it was meant to be liberally construed and was deliberately left very broad based on an original intentist pov.

On what rational basis have you determined that it was to be liberally construed? If the framers were trying to create a balance between branches, not a dominant legislature.

Besides, since when are you 'liberally' construing anything in the Constitution?


The reason "high crimes and misdemeanors" was used was because these were the most reprehensible and created serious military difficulties during the Revolution but it embraced practially any serious misbehavior while in office. It was for high crimes and misdemeanors in public office against the public...not in a criminal law sense. I'm not just talking about the actual procedure itself.

You are skipping the entirety of the statement. It's "Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors". Nor do I see where you pick up high crimes and misdemeanors as being some separate class of offenses "against the public" which have no foundation in criminal law. Treason was a crime, as was bribery.

Common sense would dictate that if I say "Pears, squash and other fruits and vegetables" I do not intend a rhinoceros or jet-ski as part of that grouping.

If the framers had simply meant "poor judgement" or "doing things we don't agree with" they could have added in "maladministration" and been done with it.

Can it be abused? Sure. Johnson simply angered the radical Pubs because he would not support their vindictive policies toward the South. He still got impeached.

They set him up, but he did violate the wording of the Tenure of Office Act.

Madison " Thought it indispensible that some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or prefidy of the chief magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service was not a sufficient security."

I have many more quotes from in particular, Iredell as well as Franklin, Hamilton, Johnston. Back then the remedy for replacing a leader was assassination or insurrections. This was a means to prevent such acts..

Could you pass along a link for your quote?

As I stated before, Madison was fought, succesfully, against a broader wording of the grounds for impeachment. The 'high crimes' language was intended to placate George Mason and others.

Ugly Duck
07-07-2007, 07:57 PM
he did violate the wording of the Tenure of Office Act.

Hey... Chimpy violates wording just about every time he opens his mouth:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

He violated that wording in his State of the Union Adress knowing full well that our own intel guyz had absolutely no confidence in it (thank you, Mr. Wilson). His words of violation were presented as a false pretext to invade another country where 3,500 countrymen are now dead. In retaliation against Mr. Wilson for exposing his violation, Chimpy's henchmen outed a covert CIA operative whose field of expertise was nuclear proliferation.... and then commuted the sentence of the henchman convicted of obstructing the investigation into the outing. Those are some vile violations. If it was good enough to impeach Johnson, its good enough to impeach Chimpy. There's yer precedent.

trndobrd
07-07-2007, 08:30 PM
Hey... Chimpy violates wording just about every time he opens his mouth:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

He violated that wording in his State of the Union Adress knowing full well that our own intel guyz had absolutely no confidence in it (thank you, Mr. Wilson). His words of violation were presented as a false pretext to invade another country where 3,500 countrymen are now dead. In retaliation against Mr. Wilson for exposing his violation, Chimpy's henchmen outed a covert CIA operative whose field of expertise was nuclear proliferation.... and then commuted the sentence of the henchman convicted of obstructing the investigation into the outing. Those are some vile violations. If it was good enough to impeach Johnson, its good enough to impeach Chimpy. There's yer precedent.


The Tenure of Office Act was a measure passed by Congress prohibiting President Johnson from replacing members of his own cabinet. Johnson did so in violation of the law. I could go into the history of the Johnson presidency, but you appear to have internet access.

WoodDraw
07-07-2007, 08:55 PM
The Tenure of Office Act was a measure passed by Congress prohibiting President Johnson from replacing members of his own cabinet. Johnson did so in violation of the law. I could go into the history of the Johnson presidency, but you appear to have internet access.

The act was unconstitutional, and people still debate whether or not Johnson actually violated the act. The Johnson impeachment case historically is viewed as very weak, below that of Clinton's and well below that of Nixon's.


In regards to impeachment, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means something far different than a modern interpretation of it does. The Federalist papers, English law, and most writings from that time give support to a fairly broad interpretation of what would be considered impeachable conduct.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 09:01 PM
The act was unconstitutional, and people still debate whether or not Johnson actually violated the act. The Johnson impeachment case historically is viewed as very weak, below that of Clinton's and well below that of Nixon's.


In regards to impeachment, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means something far different than a modern interpretation of it does. The Federalist papers, English law, and most writings from that time give support to a fairly broad interpretation of what would be considered impeachable conduct.

Shhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't reference those evil *gasp* Federalist Papers! Liberals might get the idea that our country was founded on principles other than the revisionist history they were indoctrinated in by their commie professors.

Logical
07-07-2007, 09:39 PM
Shhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't reference those evil *gasp* Federalist Papers! Liberals might get the idea that our country was founded on principles other than the revisionist history they were indoctrinated in by their commie professors.
Unless I am reading his post wrong he is using the Federalist papers to support the broader interpretation of what is an impeachable offense. In which case I don't follow your post.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 09:55 PM
Unless I am reading his post wrong he is using the Federalist papers to support the broader interpretation of what is an impeachable offense. In which case I don't follow your post.
You missed the humor Jim. I guess I should be more transparent with my posts. Most libs view the Federalist papers dimly. Not that I am classifying you as a lib to be accurate..

Ugly Duck
07-07-2007, 10:17 PM
Unless I am reading his post wrong he is using the Federalist papers to support the broader interpretation of what is an impeachable offense.

Oops!

I getta feeling that 4EVER is not a lawyer....

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 10:20 PM
Oops!

I getta feeling that 4EVER is not a lawyer....

Nope. Not a Fade fan either. :p

go bowe
07-07-2007, 11:04 PM
Chagrin, a man who never misses a chance to talk about how stupid he thinks everyone in this country is.i'll second that...

sometimes he reminds me of that pea-brained buc person...

well, maby not that bad, but close...

btw, it's moran, and your and idiot, genious, etc.

the cp lexicon...

long live the lexicon... :hail: :hail: :hail:

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:21 PM
80% (or double) the number of people who want Bush impeached want the government to acknowledge the existence of ET, too.
Bullshit.

And you seem to know it is BS since you have changed your original claim (and the one reflected by the poll in UD's link)...
80% of Americans believe that our government is hiding evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:27 PM
I suppose you also believe that each of us is free to go about our daily lives only at the discretion of the local District Attorney and the whim of 12 citizens?
Add in the police, and you are similarly describing the mechanics of our justice system. Ask any number of prisoners set free based on DNA evidence if that's how the system functions.

It's 218 votes (simple majority) required in the House to approve the articles of impeachment and 67 votes (2/3 majority) for the Senate to convict.
Sorry, my number was based on the 50% (should have been 51) simple majority.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:29 PM
Link for proof please? I read UDs link and it does not state 80% of the people want it.
That's Dongers game here. If at first he can't get over... change it up and hope no one notices.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:34 PM
Link for proof please? I read UDs link and it does not state 80% of the people want it.
A 2nd look at the link showed something odd.

From the poll article...

80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.
...
54 percent believe intelligent life exists outside Earth.
According to this poll, a full 26% think the government is "hiding knowledge of the existence of" something that they don't believe exists.

ROFL

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:35 PM
UD purposely misspells moron as moran he always has done this in his posts.
Full disclosure... mine were mistakes on my part.

Logical
07-07-2007, 11:39 PM
A 2nd look at the link showed something odd.

From the poll article...

80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.
...
54 percent believe intelligent life exists outside Earth.
According to this poll, a full 26% think the government is "hiding knowledge of the existence of" something that they don't believe exists.

ROFLWell I suppose they could believe the UFOs are being flown by non-intelligent lifeforms.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:40 PM
All of this is just an exercise in conjecture no matter how much time we spend on it. An Impeachment is not going to really occur.
I don't think it will, but I think one of Cheney should occur.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 11:44 PM
Well I suppose they could believe the UFOs are being flown by non-intelligent lifeforms.
I guess another interpretation is a literal one... in which case the problem lies with the 20% who believe that there has never been a flying object that has ever been unidentified by anyone ever.

patteeu
07-08-2007, 06:35 AM
I guess another interpretation is a literal one... in which case the problem lies with the 20% who believe that there has never been a flying object that has ever been unidentified by anyone ever.

It's really not that hard to figure out. The most reasonable interpretation is that the 26% believe that there is life on other planets but not intelligent life. You know, such things as bacteria, moss, fungi, insects, democrats, rodents, etc.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2007, 07:08 AM
Could you pass along a link for your quote?

I don't have a link for this as it's from a book put out by The National Center for Constitutional Studies in Washington DC by a conservative group which has quotes by the FF in the section on Impeachment. I hand typed it.

The analysis also said it was meant to be liberally construed too. That doesn't mean I'm claiming "liberally construed" would go as far as simple bad judgment or disagreements over policy....but I think lying to congress about intel on war does fall into this area as a betryal of public trust particularly due to the results. I think you are using an exaggerated example.

I suppose I could call my gf in Boston who is a Constitutional lawyer, and a conservative to see if she knows where I could get you something on the net.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2007, 07:34 AM
I did find theIredell one on the net....the same one in the book, and from a very conservative site it appears:

Iredell : "The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them — In this case, I ask whether upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favour him?"

It's based on defending the Clinton Impeachemen
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/050815

Donger
07-08-2007, 07:40 AM
Bullshit.

And you seem to know it is BS since you have changed your original claim (and the one reflected by the poll in UD's link)...

Actually, I was trying to make a subtle point, but I see that you (and Logical) didn't follow.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2007, 07:57 AM
I'm just googling trnobrd...and I came across findlaw which states:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html


Impeachable Offenses
Treason is defined in the Constitution; 764 bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute. 765 High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. 766 In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ''high misdemeanor'' to be quite limited in meaning, 767 but debate prior to adoption of the phrase 768 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions 769 were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment. 770 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior. 771 While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view.

trndobrd
07-08-2007, 09:36 AM
Treason is defined in the Constitution; 764 bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute. 765 High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. 766 In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ''high misdemeanor'' to be quite limited in meaning, 767 but debate prior to adoption of the phrase 768 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions 769 were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment. 770 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior. 771 While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view.

Practice over the years, however, insofar as the Senate deems itself bound by the actions of previous Senates, would appear to limit the grounds of conviction to indictable criminal offenses for all officers, with the possible exception of judges.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/...ticle02/18.html

trndobrd
07-08-2007, 09:39 AM
Later on July 28, 1788, Iredell directly addressed the essence of an impeachable offense, in a speech entitled "James Iredell on Impeachment: 'It Must Be for an Error of the Heart, and Not of the Head,'" in which he explained that actions taken in good faith, even though reflecting poor judgment, are not impeachable.

Iredell stated: "Whatever mistake a man may make, he ought not to be punished for it, nor his posterity rendered infamous. But if a man be a villain, and wilfully abuses his trust, he is to be held up as a public offender, and ignominiously punished." Id. 883.

Iredell further stated that he "suppose[d]" that "the only instances in which the President would be liable to impeachment would be where he had received a bribe, or had acted from some corrupt motive or other." Id.

Iredell proceeded to clarify what he meant by "act[ing] from some corrupt motive or other." He meant lying, or deceiving, or misleading a governmental authority.


http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/050815

Bob Dole
07-08-2007, 09:42 AM
Not at all. Polls are worthwhile. For example, we know that 80% of Americans are idiots.

Bob Dole doesn't need a poll to know that...

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 09:43 AM
If it should appear that he has not given them full, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country


So thats how conservatives defended the Clinton Impeachment? Well, it looks like the majority of voters is now conservative....

trndobrd
07-08-2007, 09:46 AM
The act was unconstitutional, and people still debate whether or not Johnson actually violated the act. The Johnson impeachment case historically is viewed as very weak, below that of Clinton's and well below that of Nixon's.


In regards to impeachment, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means something far different than a modern interpretation of it does. The Federalist papers, English law, and most writings from that time give support to a fairly broad interpretation of what would be considered impeachable conduct.


The Tenure of Office Act was not found to be unconstitutional until 1926, long after Johnson's impeachment. That he violated the act by removing Edwin Stanton is not in doubt.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2007, 10:58 AM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/...ticle02/18.html
"Appears" is not conclusive, it just shows how it was later applied. As a conservative I prefer to conserve original pov as far as possible. I do not subscribe to the living breathing Constitution that's written-on-rubber idea.

My original objection was that I was relying on the Framers pov.
Sorry but that is incorrect, per the words of our own Framers.

...it was meant to be liberally construed and was deliberately left very broad based on an original intentist pov.

The same link doesn't have the Madison quote even if it says Madison had a more limited idea. All this being said the same link says a respectable case may be made for either pov.

While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view.

As an originalist, I disagree with it as these men distrusted power in general....although I can understand how you would see it that way but then you are opposed to the idea of impeachment regarding this admin too. I'd expect you to defend your side.

As far as Johnson goes, the radical pubs were looking for something to hang the man on legally, but it was inspired politically. That's the way it works. I think the same can be done today.

trndobrd
07-08-2007, 11:32 AM
"Appears" is not conclusive, it just shows how it was later applied. As a conservative I prefer to conserve original pov as far as possible. I do not subscribe to the living breathing Constitution that's written-on-rubber idea.

My original objection was that I was relying on the Framers pov.




The same link doesn't have the Madison quote even if it says Madison had a more limited idea. All this being said the same link says a respectable case may be made for either pov.



As an originalist, I disagree with it as these men distrusted power in general....although I can understand how you would see it that way but then you are opposed to the idea of impeachment regarding this admin too. I'd expect you to defend your side.

As far as Johnson goes, the radical pubs were looking for something to hang the man on legally, but it was inspired politically. That's the way it works. I think the same can be done today.


I prefer to start with what is written on the paper then, if necessary, determine 'framers intent'. What you will find as you dig into Constitutional issues is that various 'framers' had different and conflicting views and made conflicting statements. The example I showed earlier of James Madison vs. George Mason shows conflicting views on the subject.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2007, 12:03 PM
I prefer to start with what is written on the paper then, if necessary, determine 'framers intent'. What you will find as you dig into Constitutional issues is that various 'framers' had different and conflicting views and made conflicting statements. The example I showed earlier of James Madison vs. George Mason shows conflicting views on the subject.
Believe it or not I know this. The book I relied on has a number of FF's statements on impeachment, nearly a whole chapter backing up the broadly construed pov on this point.

I also know, that most of Hamilton's ideas, if not all, were rejected in the CC, yet the Butler case confirms the Hamiltonian pov today which is now the precedent. I say this is a farce.

I prefer to start on paper as well, but if something has been left vague or undefined whether intentionally to leave it broad. or unintentionally due to omission, that doesn't mean we automatically have rely on a modern definition. I prefer to rely on what it meant then by referring the the Framer's intent and that takes reading what they said about it to see what it means fairly. Clearly, they did not think the bar was as high as we deem it today. Supermajorities can prevent abuse. So there appears to be a check right there.

Ugly Duck
07-08-2007, 12:10 PM
All this being said the same link says a respectable case may be made for either pov.

Good... so we have a respectable case for impeachment. Lets git rid of these incompetent Stooges before they screw things up even worse....

WoodDraw
07-08-2007, 12:30 PM
The Tenure of Office Act was not found to be unconstitutional until 1926, long after Johnson's impeachment. That he violated the act by removing Edwin Stanton is not in doubt.

The Tenure of Office Act was never found unconstitutional. It was repealed a few Presidents later, and then in 1926 a similar act was ruled unconstitutional. The only way this law could be challenged would be for Johnson to ignore it. He was attempting to get SC review. How else should he have challenged an uncsontitutional law?

There was debate on whether or not Johnson violated the act since Stanton was appointed by Lincoln. So yes, it is in doubt.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2007, 12:45 PM
The Tenure of Office Act was never found unconstitutional. It was repealed a few Presidents later, and then in 1926 a similar act was ruled unconstitutional. The only way this law could be challenged would be for Johnson to ignore it. He was attempting to get SC review. How else should he have challenged an uncsontitutional law?

There was debate on whether or not Johnson violated the act since Stanton was appointed by Lincoln. So yes, it is in doubt.
I read the small blurb on this impeachment in the findlaw link above, seems positively ridiculous that firing a cabinet chief was deemed impeachable. That is truly one of the flimsiest grounds.

Bush/Cheney have done far more to violate the public trust,than that imo.

ClevelandBronco
07-08-2007, 01:28 PM
If either Bush or Cheney is impeached, get ready. No president whose party doesn't hold majority power in Congress will ever finish his or her presidency without being impeached from here forward.