This place is a mess, but I've done this kinda thing before; too many times, I fear. I'll have to have the space cleared before I can finish throwing books, CDs, etc., into more boxes.
So I play a little Yahoo chess and browse clever shit like this:
The real reason Bush must be impeached, though, is that if he is not impeached, this usurper will simply ignore any bills passed by Congress, will act despite any resolutions passed by Congress, and will break any law that he thinks gets in his way. Furthermore, future presidents, Democrat and Republican, will use Bush as a precedent to ignore Congress and break laws themselves.What, you think I'd, like, just STOP!!?
14 comments:
Well, I asked for a legal argument as for impeachment, and he claims to make one, via his latest book. From what I saw on the link you provided, he hasn't made the case (not under US law anyway, just the law on his planet), and there's no way I am paying for this wingnut's book, but I will glean what I can from his website. Hopefully, it contains more than just blather about lying to the american people, which, I have said before, is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."
he's kidding right?
nope. not kidding. If you can come up with a citation or legal precedent that states "lying one's ass off to the media and public in general is a crime," I will check it and do a mea culpa if you are right. If you can show me how Dubya doesn't have qualified immunity for actions in his official capacit, let me hear about it.
Nixon broke the law, an indentifiable, known law (actually, several). Clinton broke one law, and for a stupid reason, but it was a law nonetheless. (BTW, both Nixon and Clinton lied to the American people, but neither was impeached for it because it wasn't a crime).
Now, if someone wants me to read the book, they can buy it for me. Or tell me where I can check it out of a library in Philly.
Still waiting,
Nom
two points:
1) bill clinton *was* impeached; just not convicted...
2) congress can impeach any appointed or elected federal official it wants to... whether they commit a crime or not... just ask tom delay...
:)
Salient points, but let me fill in the gaps. Clinton was impeached in the house, not convicted in the Senate, the prosecutor decided to "nol pros" on the perjury charge, and Clinton did a plea deal with the Ark. Bar for a suspension of his law license.
(Nixon was never impeached--he resigned before it could happen. He was pardoned because he still could have been prosecuted).
Thus, I read the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to mean things that you can be charged with and convicted for by a prosecutor. Whether you are or not is not what matters, it is whether you could be.
Taking your view (and the view of whats-his-name), I hear you to say that a Prez can be impeached for any plausible reason. That is tantamount to a recall election. It also ignores the standard for impeachment -- "high crimes and misdemeanors." What you have to do (and what the author tries to do, I hope) is convince me that the act complained of is a criminal act. That means a criminal law had to be violated (not a civil one or constitutional provision -- those are not criminal laws).
Next, you have to get beyond the envelope pushing stuff, much of which is what everyone complains about. Much of this occurs in the area of const. protections. But I got news for ya--trampling on someone's civil rights is typically not a crime. Illegal yes, but not always criminal. PUt another way, many criminal acts will also be civ rights violations, but civ rights violations are not, in and of themselves, criminal acts. For example, warden stomps on prisoner's hands--civ rights violation and battery. But Warden refuses to allow prisoner to see family or lawyer. Civ rights violation but not necessarily crim. Get it?
Now, go find me some crimes. If Bush is as bad as you say, there has gotta be a few out there.
I think using the consitution as toilet paper, the very item that gives him the power he enjoys to wit, is a pretty good legal reason to impeach him.
And yes, you are right - Clinton was impeached for lying by the House and further proves that Congress can decide to impeach the President for any damn reason, whether it's for lying about getting a blow job in the oval office (clinton) or sodomizing the country as a whole (bush).
i know u think yer charming, naahm, by playing robert conrad ("go ahead, i dare ya'), but exacting "what law was broken" at this point in history when this dubya has clearly violated defending & upholding the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic is precisely why shakespeare urged us to kill all the lawyers...
Spared proves my point. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a deposition. It is like lying in court, and is a crime. No matter how the left tries to spin it, he was NOT impeached for getting a BJ or for pounding the podium about not having sex with that woman. Geez, Spared, how did you ever pass the bar exam? Or were there no Constitutional Law question on it?
G, I was wondering when you were gonna get around to that. You will not see Dem 1 try to bring that type of argument to the floor. Not that it is entirely laughable (its not) but no Dem wants to lower the bar for their presidents when they have to take action that a court later finds unconstitutional. Look up the Youngstown Steel case, or perhaps Korematsu or Hirabyashi, and explain to me why Truman or Roosevelt weren't impeached. They infringed on the Constitution, didn't they? So why no impeachment?
i actually read the youngstown decision when i took a semester of con law at umass... AB, i think...
but, hey, u forgot lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the uncivil war..
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, and he was placed in that circumstance because he did not control Congress and the media as Bush has for 6 years. So, what has to happen now that the republicants are out of power is for him to be put back in the frying pan and turning up the heat. He has obviously already committed egregious acts against the Constitution. That's the high crime... unlike Clinton having consensual fellatio performed on him by an intern. Bush committed a criminal act by illegal wiretaps, fabricating information to get us into a war and Lord knows what else we won;t know about until he is out of that office.
What bar exam? I'm too well-liked to be a lawyer.
Yah, whatever. Look, I would love to prove to you that the earth is round, but I get paid well for my legal analysis (which a lot of prominent lawyers and judges happen to like) and I haven't seen your retainer yet (and I know G ain't got it).
But if you are that passionate, I recommend that you go ahead and draft the articles of impeachment in your "spared" time and send them to Charlie Rangel. Make copies and send them often. At least weekly. And fax them too, they like that.
1) I'm not a frickin lawyer. What is wrong with you? I wanted a noble profession so I chose Corporate America instead.
2) Don't prove to me the earth is round. Prove to me he is beyond impeachment. I realize you're an ambualnce chaser, but let's stay on topic.
3) I don't have spare time anymore. My day is filled with nursing a newborn, studying, recruiting, networking, working on 4th and 2nd grade school projects, watching law and order marathons, reading and otherwise making a nuisance of myself on this and other blogs.
4) I'm passionate about everything. We Latinos get riled up at the drop of an empanada. I suggest you get used to it. Given the lack of border security, we'll be taking over the country soon.
5) If I had a retainer, you couldn't afford it.
Post a Comment