Impeach

[Pianomahnn]

At the parking garage I frequent at NIU, there is this car, and on the back of this car is a bumber sticker: "Impeach Bush."

Okay. . .everytime I look at that I think the person doesn't understand what impeach really means. It's an accusation. Plain and simple.

Then there is this. (http://www.votetoimpeach.org/)

Curiosity is killing me. What has this president done which warrents an accusation? Nothing different than other presidents; people need more laws, less rights, etc.

Is this website just another "I'm upset because people can't punch chads and Gore lost cause he sucks and I hate Bush cause I vote on party lines and Democrats are really really cool even though they're horrible" website? Or is there some foundation behind it?

[Barbie]

Foundation behind impeachment?

"...this time, it means war." (bugs bunny to daffy duck)

[Pianomahnn]

What does that mean?

You made no point there and certainly didn't clarify anything.

[Hygiliak]

There are always those who believe differently.
The question is not if they believe in their convictions it is a question of how much you believe in yours

[Pianomahnn]

It's all bipartisan bullshit.

Impeach him. Whatever. Then just be sure to impeach the f'n democrat who is in office next. I'm sure he'll do things just as horrible.

[Cruise Director]

I've never understood why people want that job in the first place. You can never satisfy all of the people. Ever.

[Barbie]

Originally posted by Pianomahnn
What does that mean?

You made no point there and certainly didn't clarify anything.

The man is a warmonger and should be "tried" as one. He and his lackeys, have proven squat to the UN. He want's to go against the UN...impeach the bastard. There by preventing war.

My accusation of hims is that he's a warmonger, and should be impeached as such!

He is as much a terrorist as those he points fingers at, his tactics are just a little different.
His propoganda, is just a little different.
His reason's are just a little different.
His claimed "god" is just a little different.
His love of oil, money and power, as just the same.

[zim]

Last i read, being a "warmonger" is not a reason for impeachment. If the people wanted to put a warmonger in office, then so be it.

Last I read, going against the UN is not a reason for impeachment. We are our own nation, and we run ourselves. The UN is an organization we belong to, but will not be dictated to by.

The man has a fucking point that sadaam needs to be fucking dealt with, and if it werent for the possible death of 'innocent' iraqi's, i'd say roll the fucking tanks in right fucking now. Oil or no, sadaam must go.

And the same thing goes for the leaders @ pyongyang, half of africa, the vast majority of the middle-east (including israel, iran, and saudi) Pakistan, and yes, Blair & Bush.


But yes, as of now he's commited no impeachable offenses. I think that his disregard for the UN is in a way admirable. His disregard for his people, however, is bad... but the polls actually say we want him to do what he's doing.

The polls, are fucked. Seriously fucked.

[SimpleSimon]

Impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.

Possible, but extremely unlikely, given that his party apparatchiks have control the House, which must bring the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate, which must try them.

Has he committed impeachable offenses? Yes, he has. How can I say that so confidently? I can say it with confiidence because of the fact that the Constitution allows the House the privilege of defining what constitutes an impeachable offense.

See: US Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 5:

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

and: US Constitution, Article I;section 3, clauses 6 & 7:

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Presidential Oath of Office, found in Article II, section 1, clause 8, reads as follows:

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Please note in particular the duty to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


The President is no monarch, his actions are prescribed within a framework of law derived from the actions of the legislative bodies and of the courts of this nation. It is when the legislature abdicates it's responsibility and grants to the executive unprecedented and unconstitutional authority that we see the abuses taking place daily as now. When, again as now, the federal courts refuse to exercise the constitutionally derived powers, and constitutionally imposed duties, to review such depredations of the liberty of the citizenry as Mr. Bush has imposed in the last 17 months, we as citizens are left with no legal recourse for redress of greivances.

The result is a monarchical executive, with unrestrained powers. We face very nearly that now.

Were it within my power, I would issue articles of Impeachment against Mr. Bush, for the following acts:

*Unlawful restraint and imprisonment of citizens and resident foreign nationals
*Denial of constitutionally guaranteed rights; to wit: the right to counsel; the right to confront one's accuser; the right to speedy trial; the right to reasonable bail; the right to compell production of evidence and testimony of witnesses in one's defense
*Unlawful trial before military tribunal of person's not lawfully subject to the uniform code of military justice
*Arrogation & abrogation of the rights and duties of the judiciary of the United States, in violation of the Seperation of Powers requirements of the Constitution
*Arrogation of the rights and duties of the legislature of the United States, in violation of the Seperation of Powers
requirements of the Constitution
*Violation of his duty, as Chief Executive of the United States, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

This is only a partial list; I can go on for several pages depending upon the degree of specificity one might desire.

Mr. Bush is guilty of impeachable offenses. It is highly unlikely he will ever stand before the United States Senate to answer for his crimes. More's the pity.

[Asmodeus]

Bush a warmonger? Possible.

Has Bush done impeachable actions? Possible.

Answer me this: look at Roosevelt. Now spin him in the same light. Did he or did he not do impeachable actions to a hell of a worse degree than Bush? Yes he did. But, to history he is a hero.

While I may not put quotes and references to base my judgement on, as well as not even agreeing with Bush on a lot of what he has done, I still stand by him.

Why? He is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNTITED STATES. Thus the leader of my country.

Want to know why he is Preident? Because no matter how Gore tried to re-vote and cheat, he still lost.

Want to know why I support MY President? Because no matter what has been done to the US by others, no matter what has been said about Bush and his father, he is taking a stand FOR WHAT HE BELIEVES IN.

He may be wrong. I may be wrong. Einstein may have been wrong and relativity is a bunch of hot air spun up to sub-atomic velocities. But, Bush is standing up for what he believes to be the safety and betterment of the United States of America.

He is not making non-decisions and waiting till he can see the results of what actions may come to pass(beurocratic and political survival 101). He knows, just as you and I know, that what he does, if it is the wrong thing to do, will damn him for the rest of his life.

But, unlike most of the European nations, and damn near all other politicians, Bush is playing his cards face up for all to see and devil be damned what people think of him.

So damn me for what I say and think? And damn Bush for what he says and does? But as you do, you might as well damn yourself for being a part of the FREE NATION THAT GIVES YOU THE CHANCE TO SPEAK UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.

[SimpleSimon]

You cannot impeach a man not in office, nor may you try a man already dead - he is beyond your reach.

As to Mr. Bush being in fact the legitimate President of the United States, that question is still (and will remain) unresolved. Legitimate or no, he is in FACT the President.

As to your assertion that his public stance is the product of what he believes in, you may well be right. In that case, he not only IS guilty of impeachable offenses, but is a full blown traitor. His "executive orders", and legislation proposed before Congress and rammed through on a wave of "terror", have done more damage to the individual rights of the average citizen of this country than the cumulative actions of all presidents before him in 225 years.

Free nation?

Where?

[zim]

The same man who swore to uphold and protect the constitution is quoted as saying the following on november 22, 2000... after having been elected.

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."

[Pianomahnn]

Originally posted by Captain Disgruntled
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."[/color]

Ouch.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the judicial interprets and the executive enforces. Yes?