Impeach Bush

Sorry I though you were responding to my post above your last one. My mistake.

 

Gnight Roger have a good one.

 

I've seen that before PN. Check this video out.

 

James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional convention, argued that 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 information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into meansures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,"

The general message from interpreters of the Constitution is that impeachable offenses are not limited to specific violation of criminal statutes. The contitution was intentionally vague on this point to allow flexibility in prosecuting a president. Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:

"Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law."

A more recent writing reinforces the vague definition of an impeachable offense. In a House Judiciary sub-committee panel discussion on the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Charles Canaday, (R) Florida wrote [3]:

"The House has never in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding adopted either a comprehensive definition of high crimes and misdemeanors or a catalogue of offenses that are impeachable. Instead, the House has dealt with the misconduct of federal officials on a case by case basis..."

Back in 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." That is probably a reasonable definition, consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

SOURCE

A real investigation into the Plame leak is ongoing as it should. There are lots of internet rumors which could mean something or nothing. Guesstimations don't help much but we seem hard pressed for real info at this time.

The Mainstream media seems disinterested in pursuing it dispite that fact most people think they are all liberals and would like to see any republican boiled alive and the democrats well who takes their word for anything and they haven't stomach or backbone to go toe to toe in a real slugfest because they've been scaterbrained and intimidated by the republicans IMHO.

The same can said I suppose of the Downing Street memos and the seemingly endless ties to defense contractors and big oil companies by Bush and his administration. The ties to the Saudis and Bin Ladens the Carlyle group and Marvin, Niel, Jeb and other family members and friend's long list of alleged ties to corporations, directorships, off shore banks and laundries that could stand to gain from wars and actions implimented by George Along with allegations of complicity in the events of 911 to name a few off the top of my head.

All of these should be independently investigated in my mind, something Bush and his administration (and congress) seem reluctant and even hostile to allow to happen. And the mainstream media seem reluctant to talk about it other than to site anoymous government "sources" without any thing I would consider real investigative journalism. Many internet journalists have published very good and compelling pieces but they are either demonized by the mainstream liberal media as conspiracy theorists or looney liberals (?) Go figure.

Why is this? Why are the same people that defend the Patriot Act(s) by saying "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" not saying the same about this administration or any public servant connected to this administraion for that matter? If they have nothing to hide why do they resist an indepedent investigation?

That's all I have for now.

 

Objective and balanced as always I see. Were you born an expert on everything or is that just what you'd like us to beleive? Most of us that attended public school have to learn as we go.

[ September 01, 2005, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

Wouldn't that be up to congress to prove? That's their duty as representatives of the people so I understand to try the president. It's the duty of the people to ask questions and demand answers and action from those representives. Right?

 

In light of the way the government sees our pockets as bottomless pits for their pet projects and the laid back approach they take in driving us to the poor house I'd say that would be the last thing they would truely consider but the first excuse they would give. You and I should rightly consider in the top ten questions though.

These charges will remain vague as long as the watchdogs of government act like lap dogs and the people are content to be subserviant to their servants. I reckon.

 

Probably a clear definition of high crimes and misdemeaners is in order here, emeraldcityangel seems to be claiming he has one that is indisputitable. How about helping us mere mortals out here with it?

Time for some shut eye. Good night Roger. Thanks for the interaction. See you tomorrow Lord willing.