Skip to main content

View Diary: I’ve got a couple of cards in that suit. (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why do the Congresspeople (9+ / 0-)

    not seem to get the fact that Bush is the commander-in-chief of the military ONLY, and not commander-in-chief of America, and SAY SO PUBLICLY? Often and loudly?

    Seriously, if he comes out and says what the reports indicate he will say about the "escalation", tell me why you would not be willing to immediately come out with an Impeachment proceeding?

    •  Because when you fire at the King (16+ / 0-)

      you'd better hit him.  

      And Impeachment doesn't work without evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

      And having a differing interpretation of the powers of the Presidency from that held by Congress is not a high Crime or misdemeanor. Otherwise Truman could have been impeached for trying to nationalize the Steel industry.

      Now, that said, if the investigations led by good people like Congressman Miller lead to evidence of such actions (and not merely some blogger screaming "BUT YOU KNOW HE DID IT") then we should, by all means o after him.

      But you don't want to fire that particular bullet until you know it will hit its target.  Ask No Longer Speaker Newt Gingrich about that...

      JRE 2008
      "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
      -John Edwards

      by DrFrankLives on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:36:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Point taken (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, txlosthorn

        but it is not interpretation at this point. Have you seen Bush's signing statements? He is simply making shit up and taking powers which were never granted to him in the first place.

        And I disagree about Impeachment. It is not necessarily about criminality (although I think most people here are convinced he and Cheney are criminals), it is about removal from office. That is why there are no criminal penalties associated with it. The impeached person can even run again for the same office and be elected if enough people agree with it.

        Now, as a practical matter, I am torn on Impeachment. I would like to see it done since if we don't do it for what Bush and Cheney have already done, what would we do it for? On the other hand, I would like to see tem stay in place, damaging the Rethuglican party more and more each day. A very tough choice....

        •  About impeachment... (4+ / 0-)

          ...The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

          Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

          In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
          Source link:

          Observe this: Criminal charges CAN be associated with it. And the "impeached" can be forbidden to hold future public office.

          Letting BushII the King stay in office sends the message to further wanna-be kings that they may rule with the divine right of kings with impunity and indeed places a stamp of approval implicitly that his actions are acceptable, tolerated and even encouraged.

          Change the course--change the Captain. Change the crew. But save the ship!

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:24:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  slight correction (3+ / 0-)

            the forbidding of the convicted impeached person to hold public office is actually part of the charges voted in impeachment by the House.  It bars the person from federal office or benefit.

            Such was NOT part of the impeachment charges drawn by the Judiciary Committee against Nixon.

            Such WERE included in the impeachment charges brought against Clinton.

            If the Senate convicts, it is on the charge and with the penalties brought forth by the House.

            Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

            by teacherken on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:02:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site