Impeach Bush

Sorry Aaron - that is not a misdemeanour.

www.dictionary.com

Can you show us a recognised definition of misdemeanour as "doing a lousy or inadequate job"?

 

I disagree with President bushes proposal on immigration. But impeaching him over this is retarded. All he did was make a proposal. There was no crime worthy of impeachment.

Things you can do as Americans:

Vote.
Write to your representatives.
Write to your Senators.
Spread your views to other Americans.
Revolt.

The United States is an elected representative government. Booting an elected official because he disagrees with your views is not how things work in America.

 

You still refuse to present evidence that anyone hates Bush. You have dictatorially made a claim and stated that anyone who responds is guilty. The fact that there are no Bush haters is not by anyone's decree, but by the fact that you could not prove it in a thread that lasted 150 posts.

There are many who do not agree with his policies. There are many who would like to see him out of office. Some would like to see him imkpeached. But you have still not provided one single shred of evidence that anyone hates him.

Please, keep this thread on the topic of impeaching Bush. We have already wasted ten pages of bandwidth on a discussion of whether anyone hare him or not. </font>[/QUOTE]Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

 

If we cannot keep this topic on thread it will be closed.

The topic is impeaching George Bush.

 

Well if someone wants to impeach
1. an outstanding President
2. who brought us out of the Clinton recession,
3. brought us through the impact of 9/11,
4. punished those responsible,
5. and is not ashamed to acknowledge Jesus Christ as his Savior
6. they must hate him.

There, I used the word impeach so I am on topic.

 

Your logic is still skewed. It is possible for a person to want to see one impeached without hating him.

Anyone who wants to impeach the president simply does not understand the consitutional requirements for impeachment.

 

Can you show us a recognised definition of misdemeanour as "doing a lousy or inadequate job"? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, doing a bad job is certainly a misdeed, but the Framers didn't consult www.dictionary.com when drafting the Constitution. A misdemeanor is simply bad behavior, and Congress is the judge. I think Pat Buchanan may have a case.

Doing a bad or inadequate job is a moral judgment. And Congress has the say.

 

I disagree 100%.

Congress is not the arbiter for impeachment, the Constitution is.

Buchanan is just out because he is anti-Bush.

No one has spelled any real solid grounds for impeachment, just that they don't like the things Bush has done.

 

If you can't remove someone from office when they commit the high crime of perjury... then one has to wonder where the treshold is.

BTW, If Bush has done anything impeachable then so did Kennedy (Bay of Pigs amongst other fiascos), Johnson (lied about and personally profitted from Vietnam), Carter (couldn't possibly have been more incompetent), FDR (was actively seeking ways to get the US into the war while publicly declaring his resolve to stay out), Lincoln (by not allowing the south the right of succession as constitutionally guaranteed), Jefferson (purchased the Louisianna territory without congressional approval)...

The list of Presidents who never did anything questionable or unpopular with Congress would be pretty short.

 

The Constitution does not call for removal of such a POTUS. It calls for the impeachment of such a POTUS. In other words, the Constitution allows Congress to decide if the crime warrants removal from office.

No, it wouldn't. It would be empty.

 

I'm not making that moral judgement. I was simply addressing the fact that the Constitution doesn't mandate the removal of a POTUS. It only mandates the provisions for which a POTUS may be considered for removal.

 

You're wrong. Congress could impeach the President for spitting on the sidewalk if they were so inclined.

Maybe so, but if he convinces Congress then Bush will be impeached, and if two thirds of the Senate agree, then he's out. I'm inclined to agree that Bush's immigration policies are a serious lapse in judgment and are endangering us all.

 

I didn't like it either for President Clinton, but it had to be done. No one can be allowed to lie to congress.

 

When the irrefutable evidence came up corroborating President Clintons lie, his impeachment should have included removing him from office. We lost integrity in the office of Presidency in that. Cut that was common in that administration.

 

There are two coons eating the cat's food on the patio. Cute

 

I didn't like it either for President Clinton, but it had to be done. No one can be allowed to lie to congress. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought at the time that Andrew Johnson got a raw deal. In the Clinton case, the problem was the perjury but since it was mostly a civil matter, I think that justice was done when Clinton was acquited. But then I supported the pardon of Nixon by Ford.

As for Bush, the Democrats will never let him have a minute's rest. They will hound him every second the rest of his term just as they did at Crawford. The Democrats should drop their support for abortion. As for the far-right, they are illogical and unfriendly.

 

There are, of course, no grounds for the present impeachment talk.

Political silliness.

The man has done nothing to merit impeachment.