Daily Kos

Impeachment:  What the Constitution does not say

Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:12:53 AM PDT

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this system of political strategizing and endless campaigns for the United States of America.

Article I

...The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachmentand may abrogate this power in a public statement from its speaker when it is deemed politically expedient to do so.

Section 3.  

...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.  Impeachment proceedings shall not be entered into unless the concurrence of two thirds of the members present is guaranteed prior to the trial; the breadth and level of crimes will come second to the guarantee of this concurrence as preserving advantageous political outcome strategy trumps defending our government's balance of power and this Constitution.    

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. Unless an indictment is guaranteed, impeachment proceedings must not be begun. Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Section 7.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it ,or he can circumvent Congress by signing and add his own interpretation of the law including what he will and will not follow, and Congress will not challenge this....

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations except when they are committed by the Executive Branch and it is not politically helpful to the majority party to do so.;

To declare war,unless the President feels like doing so, in which case Congress should not present a challenge grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years and appropriation should take place even if the war is being lost if it is deemed politically expedient for the majority party to do so.;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions unless there is an ambiguously worded war with no paramaters claimed by the Executive Branch, in which case Congress should cede power.;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; these powers are to be simply ignored if a quagmire war is entered into and it is politically better to wait until the next round of elections to do anything to end it...

...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereofunless the idea that there is nothing Congress can do about anything becomes prevalent, then Congress should ignore all power this Constitution mandates for the Legislative Branch...

...The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.  The Executive Branch may interpret this in any way they see fit if their appointees agree with them, and Congress may stop fighting this if the idea that it is useless to do so becomes prevalent amongst its members.

... No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another,  unless the commerce involves the oil industry or industries that have contributed heavily to campaigns, in which case preferences involving regulations of all kinds are granted.

Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President,unless the Vice President decides he is not part of the executive branch chosen for the same term, be elected or appointed by the Supreme Court, as follows....:

...In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may (just ignore the following in impeachment considerations)by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.The Executive Branch is entitled to receive any profit they may make indirectly through the declaration and continuance of illegal war, and Congress may not do a thing about this.

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,except in cases where I, the decider, decide it should be dismantled."

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.Congress may simply ignore any and all obvious powers this last statement implies for that branch

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments,unless it is established by precedent that the "President should always have his man" outside of what this Constitution dictates, and regardless of the outcome of inferior appointees...

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed if he agrees with them, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, unless the majority party in Congress decides there will just never be enough votes to do so and it may cost them voters in subsequent elections, in which case all crimes including the dismantling of this very Constitution shall be ignored.

Impeach, our Constitution is fine the way it is, and it mandates action.  Here's that last section again, without the portion some are seemingly fantasizing included:  

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

It is time for all defenders of the Constitution to do your jobs.  

Poll

The Constitution calls for impeachment of the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States for treason, briber, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

4%4 votes
9%8 votes
2%2 votes
1%1 votes
82%70 votes

| 85 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Constitution, Parody, Impeachment, Satire (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 124 comments

    •  You know, (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JohnGor0, PsychoSavannah

      the Constitution proscribes what powers everybody has, but is silent on when they should be used.  I didn't vote in your poll because the premise is misstated.  The Constitution does not "call for" impeachment in any circumstances; it is always up to the House.

      The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

      by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:21:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I quoted the Constitution, directly. There is no (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, One Pissed Off Liberal

        premise except for the Constitution's premise.

      •  In case you missed it in the diary: (3+ / 0-)

        Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

        or shall we debate the meaning of "shall"?

        •  "and conviction of" (0+ / 0-)

          Don't gloss over that clause.

          When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

          by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:51:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gloss it over? I've posted it three times! (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            cometman

            It still doesn't say "Do not attempt impeachment unless conviction is ensured prior to a trial beyond the shadow of a doubt."  

            •  What I'm saying (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Superribbie, Elise, Warren Terrer, GoldnI

              is you're misunderstanding the grammar.  The sentence does not say they are required to be impeached and removed from office after committing crimes.  It says they shall be removed from office upon conviction.  There is no imperative other than removal upon conviction.  No requirement to impeach and no requirement to convict.

              When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

              by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:07:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not misunderstanding "shall" nor am I (0+ / 0-)

                misunderstanding the grammar.  I think what you are missing is that there is nothing, nothing there that says the only way this remedy shall be applied is if Congress feels like it.

                There is no imperative to have enough votes, or be assured a conviction either.  There is, however, an imperative, obviously, if you believe that "shall" means "shall" to present an opposition through impeachment and/or conviction, in accordance with our Constitution to  

                treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

                and our representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution.  

                •  What's good for the goose... (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Elise, Warren Terrer

                  there is no affirmative restriction on bringing impeachment proceedings when you don't have the votes.  Nor is there an affirmative directive to bring proceedings in any circumstance.  It is purely discretionary.  Now, you can question the current Representatives' use of that discretion under the current facts, but you cannot argue that there is some mandate that they are violating through inaction.

                  The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

                  by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They are sworn to uphold the Constitution, (0+ / 0-)

                    which clearly states that crimes committed by the Executive Branch and others shall be responded to with impeachment/conviction/removal from office.

                    So yes, I can and will argue that they are not doing their Constitutional duty.

                    Unless you'd like to argue that the administration is not guilty of the crimes as outlined, I don't get what your point in continuing to argue against this is.

                    Do you have some other plan that will lead to the same end?  

                    •  but it doesn't say that. (3+ / 0-)

                      It doesn't say they shall respond with impeachment.  It simply doesn't.  It says they shall be removed from office upon conviction.  That's it. There is no other directive.

                      I wish it said what you are saying it says but it doesn't.  There is no imperative to impeach anywhere in the constitution.

                      When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                      by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:45:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It is the only remedy offered in the Constitution (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        PsychoSavannah

                        available to the Congress to deal with their crimes.

                        Is the Constitution, which they are required to uphold, to be circumvented and Congress' power abrogated?   Do you not see the danger in arguing against the power of the legislative branch at this juncture in history?  

                        There is an imperative to uphold the Constitution, the President, VP, etc. shall be removed by the remedies therein.

                        The question we should have is why is this being ignored, and if the answers aren't in keeping with Congress' sworn duty, then we the people need to say so!

                        •  Nobody is arguing against the power (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          Elise

                          of the legislative branch.  They have the power to impeach.  They also have the power to not impeach.

                          The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

                          by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  It is the only remedy (4+ / 0-)

                          and I'm not arguing against it.  What I am arguing against is your misunderstanding of the grammar of that sentence.  

                          The shall in that sentence applies only to removal upon conviction.  It does not apply to impeachment.  

                          When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                          by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:52:53 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I was not misunderstanding the grammar in that (0+ / 0-)

                            sentence, what I was misunderstanding was that there was a completely separate side argument going on that had little to nothing to do with my original point.  I operated from the assumption that the premise of my diary was actually being addressed, and I should have known better as a regular participant here.  

                            •  Yes, blame the messengers. (0+ / 0-)

                              You said something that was in error and you were politely corrected.  

                              When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                              by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:45:00 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Um, no I didn't. Please go back to my very first (0+ / 0-)

                                response and subsequent explanations.  I thought I was defending the premise of my diary, apparently that was not the case.  I apologize for misunderstanding, but this has had nothing to do with my point, which is that there is nothing in the Constitution that limits Congress to use their powers, and that it is time for them to uphold the and defend the Constitution, as they have sworn to do so.  The rest was side arguing over whether they were required to do so by that phrase in particular, which I understand now.  

                                So here, clonelone, and supperbibbie, I will officially concede that there is nothing in the particular phrase that means Congress has to impeach if that is what you need to hear.  I'm a teacher and I swear to not allow young minds to develop in my classroom without attempting to bias their thinking, and I suppose I can ignore that oath as well if I want to.  There may be some problems with that if I attempt to ignore it and my boss finds out though.  And that is where we the people come in.    

                                They are sworn to do so, and absent any other remedy in the Constitution, they must do so when the Constitution is being subverted lest they abandon their oaths.

                                That is my take on it.  You can have the semantic argument I hardly knew I was in to begin with.

                    •  Wrong, (4+ / 0-)

                      If convicted, they shall be removed.  It is a penalty provision.  That is the only "shall" regarding impeachment.  

                      This is kind of like the standard criminal code provision that says "if convicted, an individual shall receive not less than...and up to..."

                      These penalty clauses do not impose any requirement on prosecutors to bring specific cases; that is always up to prosecutors (and grand juries).

                      As for my motive, I'm just looking for a little intellectual honesty.  While it may feel better to make grand Constitutional pronouncements about requirements and duties, the honest thing would be to say "I think what this administration has done adds up to impeachable offenses and I wish Congress would exercise its discretion to use the power alloted to it."

                      The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

                      by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:50:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Right (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          clonecone, Elise

          "shall be removed from office on impeachment..."

          it defines what happens if an impeachment proceeding is brought.  The latter clause gives guidance on the types of things a legitimate impeachment should have.  It does not, however, say that when those things are present, the Congress shall commence an impeachment proceeding.  That decision is completely discretionary with the House.

          The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

          by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:27:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grammar (0+ / 0-)

            "shall be removed" modifies which nouns?  Hello?

            •  Hi there (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Elise, Warren Terrer

              The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States.

              So what?

              The point is still that they shall be removed upon conviction.  Nothing more.

              The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

              by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:54:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The entire point of my diary is that there is no (0+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                ImpeachKingBushII

                directive to Congress that this happens only if they feel they have enough votes prior to even beginning the proceedings.

                The Constitution mandates this remedy, and evidence of crimes exist.

                Congress is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to add "if and when" to their considerations.

                •  Then your premise is wrong. (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Superribbie, Elise

                  It mandates nothing.  There is no requirement to impeach.

                  When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                  by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:00:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're assuming that the sworn oath is not an (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Karma for All, ImpeachKingBushII

                    inherent requirement.  The oath to defend and uphold yada yada yada is NOT a "requirement," in your mind.  Technically, if you slice and dice the words just so, you may be right.

                    By doing this, however, you're essentially arguing that there is no implied duty that goes along with the sworn oath.  Think about what you're saying there.

                    Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                    by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:13:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  They are sworn to uphold the consitition (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Elise

                      How does not impeaching a president violate that oath?  There is not requirement to impeach, so there is no violation of the oath.  

                      When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                      by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What does the Constitution say should be done to (0+ / 0-)

                        preserve the balance of power and remedy crimes by the Executive Branch then?  Do you really think the founders just left that out?

                        •  It doesn't say anything should be done. (0+ / 0-)

                          You have a serious misunderstanding if you think can and should mean the same thing.

                          When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                          by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:28:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you honestly think the framers wrote the (0+ / 0-)

                            Constitution and did not say to themselves:  Hmmm, there may come a day when the President, VP or other officials commit criminal acts.  Did they simply leave it out, or is this the remedy intended.  

                            We can parse words all day, but I think it is obvious that this is what the power granted to Congress is, and I think it is Congress' duty to preserve the balance of power created by Constitutional checks and balances.  

                            •  I think if they wanted imperatives on this topic (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              Elise

                              they would have written imperatives. They didn't hesitate to write imperatives in other sections of the document.  

                              When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                              by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:40:18 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Do you think taking an oath to uphold (0+ / 0-)

                                 
                                and defend the Constitution is an imperative to use Constitutional powers to do so?

                              •  That's a weird interpretation (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                Karma for All
                                A lot of Americans and a LOT of Progressives have always believed the Constitution was a "living document," i.e. that some things that weren't technically written in the Constitution were implied by the principles espoused in there.

                                It seems you disagree.

                                Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                                by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:09:32 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  I believe it is a living document. (0+ / 0-)

                                  But I haven't seen basis for turning "can" into "is required to".  It's just not there.

                                  When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                                  by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:12:14 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  That's not what you said. (1+ / 0-)

                                    Recommended by:
                                    Karma for All

                                    I think if they wanted imperatives on this topic they would have written imperatives.

                                    What I'm saying is that such a literal interpretation of what's "written" in the Constitution essentially rejects the implied imperatives in the Constitution that 'living document' believers like myself embrace.

                                    I like to call an implied imperative a 'duty.'  Do you think Congress has a duty, or implied imperative, to impeach a President who engages in high crimes and misdemeanors?

                                    Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                                    by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:57:30 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                      •  Fine, not "required," but is there a duty? nt (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Karma for All

                        Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                        by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:06:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  By your logic...Why obey the law? ... (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Karma for All

                    ...No consequences means carte blanch. It means no fear of accountability. No fear of losing his job no matter how much he screws-up the country. Bush and company must be drowning in their champagne! I wish I had a boss that wasn't required to fire me if I screwed-up. No such animal. Why is Bush and his pals any better than us poor working slobs? I forgot, he's our King!

                    Repeat after me, "All hail King Bush"!

                    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

                    by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:18:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  By my logic? (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not arguing against impeachment.  All I am arguing is that the constitution does not require it.  There is no imperative about impeachment anywhere in the document.  

                      When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                      by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:22:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The imperative can and should be assumed by those (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        ImpeachKingBushII

                        that took an oath to defend the Constitution.  It is the remedy provided.  

                        •  Should be assumed.... (0+ / 0-)

                          You're the one who wrote a diary criticizing people for assuming text that isn't there.  No you want assumptions that fit your argument?  How about we stick to what is actually there.

                          When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                          by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:38:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We're talking about the imperative to bring (0+ / 0-)

                            crimninals in the Executive branch to justice.  Are you really trying to argue that Congress is not responsible for doing that by using their Constitutional powers, who is responsible for it if they are not?    

                            I wrote a diary pointing out that the limitation to their powers is nowhere in the Constitution.  That was the premise, despite all of the meandering side roads others have taken in attempts to distract from that very easily understoon and valid point.

                  •  My premise is wrong? (0+ / 0-)

                    Would you mind reading it again and telling me where it is wrong?  

                    The entire point of my diary is that there is no (0 / 0)
                    directive to Congress that this happens only if they feel they have enough votes prior to even beginning the proceedings

                    Now, we went off on a nice little tangent that you and I don't agree upon, but that has nothing to do with my premise, unless you can find where it says in the Constitution that Impeachment will not be entered into until Congress deems that they have enough votes prior to beginning the proceedings, or any of the other "not in the Constitution" facts I added in bold actually exist.

                    •  You are adding plenty that isn't there. (0+ / 0-)

                      The consitution does not lay out terms for when impeachment must take place. Here's what it says:

                      The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

                      No requirement to impeach there.

                      The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

                      No requirement to impeach there.  The only requirement stated is removal of office upon conviction by the senate.  

                      That's it.  There's no requirement to do anything.

                      When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

                      by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Amazing what lengths (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Superribbie, Elise

                people will go to to get the constitution to say what it clearly doesn't say. You're points are patently obvious and shouldn't have to be argued.

        •  'Shall' just means (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Superribbie, PsychoSavannah

          if they are convicted they automatically are removed from office. It has nothing to do with when they should be impeached. Superribbie is correct.

          But I voted in the poll because I felt like it.

        •  Uh, is it "sh" "all"? Never mind. nt (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Karma for All

          "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:10:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

        The Constitution is silent on what comprises high crimes and misdemeanors.  That might actually be cause for amendment, when you think about it.

  •  Very cogent; (4+ / 0-)

    seems that almost all elected officials feel that the Constitution is optional.

    When "stupidity" suffices, why search for any other reason?

    by wozzle on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:18:24 AM PDT

  •  Something we all forget (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Elise

    Is that Impeachment is dependant on actually having the votes to impeach. I hate Bush/Cheney, and want them gone yesterday. But you can't impeach the president by making a mean frowny face, and yelling loudly.

    x amount of congressmen have to approve impeachment to send it to the Senate, and x amount of Senators have to vote to remove the impeached.

    If the votes aren't there, Nancy Pelosi would look silly running failing bill after failing bill out there.

    klaatu barada nikto

    by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:26:18 AM PDT

    •  Dependent or not, the number of votes is not a (4+ / 0-)

      pre-requirement of impeachment according to the Constitution, yet impeachment and conviction is a requirement for high crimes, misdemeanors, etc.

      It is a duty to uphold the Constitution, not to strategize about whether or not doing so is beneficial.

      •  That's your take (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Elise

        that people are strategizing whether it's beneficial or not.

        You can't build a house without a foundation. I believe that the foundation is being laid. As more is exposed through investigation, as the WH pretends that laws don't apply to them, the media starts squawking for something to be done. As the GOP sinks to negative numbers, they'll start screaming for impeachment.

        Then you will get your wish.

        klaatu barada nikto

        by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:31:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, forgive me if I just scream right now (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          cfaller96

          simply because it is the right thing to do, kay?

          •  Right thing to do? (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Superribbie, Elise, PsychoSavannah

            There are nobel dreams, and there's reality. Yes, Bush should have hung on the front lawn of the White House 4 years ago. But in reality, conservative corporations control our discourse, and they set the rules.

            Scream all you want for impeachment, but please don't join the GOP in calling Pelosi and the Dems in congress complacent and incompitant.

            Bush can't even twist arms and get a stupid, ineffective immigration bill passed in a Senate where the majority wants the bill passed. He is now left with playing rope-a-dope, fending off subpeonas and warrants for the next 18 months.

            klaatu barada nikto

            by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:19:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I will call them complacent for as long as they (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              cfaller96

              remain complacent!  We are still at war with Iraq, are we not?  Nothing has been done to bring Bush to justice and it appears that nothing is being done.  If you believe that impeachment is inevitable, why are you bothering to argue with those of us that are ahead of the game?  

              Do you really think we have that much time to waste?

              •  What in the world are you talking about? (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Superribbie, Elise, bethincary
                1. You say NOTHING is being done? What do you call the investigations, subpeonas and such?
                1. Wasting Time? Do you not think that a failed impeachment will be a waste of time? If the votes aren't lined up to make it happen, why would they force it to the floor to lose, and give George Bush a huge victory? Are you a Republican?

                klaatu barada nikto

                by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:30:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agree with you. (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  JohnGor0, PsychoSavannah

                  They've sent subpoenas out the wazoo-thanks to Sen Leahy and Rep Conyers. though I'll agree Speaker Pelosi needs to reign in Blue Dogs-they with the GOP are running this country into the ground.

                  •  And what have the subpoenas accomplished thus (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    cfaller96

                    far?  Bush pretty much said "up yours."  

                    What's next?

                    •  The nice letter from Leahy (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Karma for All, cfaller96

                      that's currently in the front page of dKos....he, in essence, says "pretty please".  

                      Congress has evidence, lots of it, with lots more to follow once the threat is removed from over the heads of underlings.  A few of them have already rolled.  Immunity letters ought to be going out instead of subpeonas.  That might get us a little further into the process of removing the criminals.  

                  •  Umm, out the wazoo? (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Karma for All, PsychoSavannah

                    They sent, what, 2 sets of subpoenas out?  And they almost immediately got the middle finger back at them.  And they sent a sternly worded letter.  Yeah, real "hopeful signs of progress" there.  Where have I heard that phrase before?

                    Unless and until impeachment is seriously considered, then there is no incentive for the Bush Administration to cooperate with any of these investigations.  Thus,

                    no talk of impeachment = no real progress on investigations

                    Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                    by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:19:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The entire USA gate scandal has (0+ / 0-)

                      meant that many subpoenas have been issued. I consider these most recent subpoenas connected to those cases-NSA and USA-not these 2 most recent ones "new" in any way. Dems have only been in office a short time-they've issued quite a bit. As a diarist here for many stories-you don't go straight to the ending of a story. I presume it takes you a while to compile and lay out to the public what your facts are and how to proceed. why should these hearings be any different. the level of corruption is so deeply entrenched in all agencies of government-that it takes these subpoenas to lay it all out.
                      I had thought about impeachment as the only option. after seeing Dean and Turley on KO-I think Congress should go for criminal charges. These men need to be behind bars and not allowed to go back into private sector.

                      btw-when you reply-could you lose the snark please?
                       you want my respect and attention?
                      please act like it-snark wins over NO one.
                      rational discussion does.

                •  Calm down. (0+ / 0-)

                  You say NOTHING is being done? What do you call the investigations, subpeonas and such?

                  1.  I call them "beating around the Bush" pun in-freaking-tended.

                  Wasting Time? Do you not think that a failed impeachment will be a waste of time? If the votes aren't lined up to make it happen, why would they force it to the floor to lose, and give George Bush a huge victory? Are you a Republican

                  1.  You're lucky I don't TR you for that, do try to keep your responses focused on the content of my comments if you expect me to reply in a likewise fashion.  To answer your question, a failed impeachment would not be a waste of time.  However, you are the one assuming failure, and that is a logical fallacy.
                  •  Do you honestly believe (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Elise

                    that the votes are there in the Senate? We can't even bring George Bush's immigration bill to the floor!

                    One doesn't need to yell the contents of one's head in a crowd to see what would go over well, and what wouldn't. Yours is also a logical fallacy. One can look at the numbers, and choose to make the case for impeachment before it is introduced.

                    The TR sword is double edged, and TRs both ways.

                    I do apologize.

                    klaatu barada nikto

                    by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:52:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you for your apology. (0+ / 0-)

                      One can look at the numbers, or one can decide to do the job one is sworn to do and preserve and defend the Constitution.  That is the entire point of my diary, see what I posted as "not" in the preamble at the very start of it.

                      In some instances it should not matter in the least what will go over well, like trying to subvert the Constitution, taking us to war on phony pretext, etc.  

                      It comes down to whether you have faith in the Constitution and justice, or if your faith lies in the shadow political government and unwritten rules.  I go with the Constitution and justice, as parties and politics come and go, the Constitution is the point of consensus for all Americans.  The latter can be created and molded from day to day, even to support the former.  

        •  But then the republicans (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Karma for All

          get the credit!  It's not hard to figure out....lay out the articles and present them.  Some repubs will agree....they ALREADY do.  

          As far as I'm concerned, ignoring a Congressional subpeona is grounds for impeachment.  Hell, GWB has already admitted, ON TEEVEE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE, that they lied and broke the law with regard to the warrantless wiretaps.  Jon Stewart has the clips.  Same with Gonzales.  What is it going to take?

          I had to laugh last night while watching Keith Olbermann's show....he was talking about the subpeonas as his first story.  Just for kicks, I clicked over to Fox Noise and Ann Coultergeist was on Bill O'Liely's show.  It was fucking surreal.  And that is why the articles need to be drawn up and read on every single news network and cable channel.  If they're out there, Fox can't ignore them and keep part of the population in the dark.

          •  Impeachment = Media Storm (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            Yep.  

            •  Although the mechanics of it (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Karma for All

              can be boring as hell, someone like Nancy Grace and Greta van Sustern should be FORCED to cover it so all the idiots that watch their shows breathlessly could actually hear about something important.  Perhaps they could come on every night and add the tiny little tidbits of info that are found the day before.  The little "fast facts" graphics could list the laws that have been broken....they'd need 7 or 8 screens for it!

              Oh, sorry - dreaming again.....

              •  Ha! (0+ / 0-)

                Let me join you.  Larry King could ask Suzanne Summers, Paris Hilton and Judge Judy what they thought of this "Impeachment thing."  That blonde girl on The View could have a big old fight with Joy what's her name about it..Tomcat would of course have to come out for or against or risk missing a week with their faces in the news, every publicist in the land would have to read the Constitution and translate for their starlets...Wolf would have to say the word "Impeachment"...Bill O'Reilly would go out of his mind...American Idol singers would comment in favor of it during their auditions...

              •  Yes, the Mechanics of it are Boring as Hell (0+ / 0-)

                And that's why you guys want to fast forward through the mechanics, and just get to the last part. It took the Republicans 4 years of controlling both houses to get to the point of getting a report to vote on.

                I'm not arguing that Bush/Cheney don't deserve to be impeached, and I'm not arguing that we should be careful, lest we get ridiculed by Fox News.

                I believe that the Democratic House leaders are following a path that checkmates the president or VP. As they get closer, the media will take it more seriously, and as it hurts the GOP worse and worse, they'll cause the critical mass.

                Who cares who gets credit? This isn't a screaming head talk show, it's a 200 year old government, and it isn't supposed to move fast.

                klaatu barada nikto

                by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:07:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is the last part that will drive the former. (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't think you're quite getting that.  

                  No one said it wasn't supposed to move fast, Bush seems to have moved us into war and is upturning the Constitution at a pretty rapid pace.  

                  The people dying in Iraq and the rest of the people at rist of death due to this administration don't have time for inside out strategies that you're only assuming are taking place right now.  

                  •  And they don't have time (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Superribbie, PsychoSavannah

                    for "storm the Bastille and die on the steps" policies that you are demanding.

                    I don't understand what you don't think I'm getting.

                    George Bush had an entire military-media complex behind him to push us into war. The CIA and poppa Bush, for christsakes, were drowned out in the din.

                    We don't have that luxury. It is a slow process. Watergate took 4 years to unravel.

                    Let me ask you this, Karma:

                    Pelosi brings Kucinich's impeachment bill to the floor of the house ( I don't know what the voting rules are, like, how many votes are needed. Let's pretend, 60% ). The votes line up along partisan lines. Now what?

                    klaatu barada nikto

                    by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:27:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Enter: Media Storm (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      PsychoSavannah

                      Everyday Americans encounter the impeachable offenses through reporting on the DC, all the dramatic flair that the media alone can muster...Impeachment moves into the consciousness of the American people and people who knew Bush should go intuitively have the reasons to back that up...Republicans are pressured to cut and run from the Admninistration...Impeachment bill is brought to floor again, rinse and repeat until it is complete, all the while with the word in the news, with the crimes being debated across the nation and in the halls of Congress...as is a right and proper response to the crimes this administration has committed.  

                      Now, quid pro quo:

                      What is the down side of Nancy Pelosi doing so, and does it have any basis whatsoever in the ethical defense of the Constitution?  

                      •  First of all, (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Superribbie

                        I think you're giving the media a lot of credit. Once the bill fails, you assume the media is going to pick up the gauntlet and do the Dem's job for them: making the detailed case for impeachment.

                        Downside? The media loves a winner. If George Bush "wins" this round upon the failure of impeachment, the media decided that Bush is the comeback kid, and they laud him as such. They downplay any evidence, and Bush "bounces" back into the low-40's. The cowards in congress run from the word impeachment, the presidential contenders all clam up, and you're looking at PResident Fred, God of all American Heroes!!

                        What's the downside of letting this process play itself out? As the facts come out and are nailed to George Bush's forehead every single day, it becomes harder for the media to run away from them. The media becomes invested in impeachment. It's sales 101. If the customer isn't sold on the product, and you go for the close, they have no investment, and they can blame you for being pushy. If you get the customer to reveal the upside of the product and "try it on" in their mind, they are invested, and would feel foolish letting it fail.

                        It seems that the only difference between my vision and yours is you get to feel good about attacking Bush. Even if yours magically makes the media feel guilty and pull an aboutface, do you think that would happen any quicker than letting this play out through the end of the year?

                        klaatu barada nikto

                        by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:47:06 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Once again, you are assuming failure. (0+ / 0-)

                          I know it's hard to do, but try to get past that.

                          I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe that George Bush is guilty of provable crimes.  I do.  I believe it and I also believe that more people will believe it once impeachment becomes a word that is not automatically ridiculed.  Right now we've got to get past our own party doing that.  After that, the legitimacy of government representatives calling for it in unison will solidify its legitimacy as a valid remedy that is given to the legislative branch, and the people, by the Constitution itself.

                          It's really as simple as that.  

                          The media is controlled, still, by what the people want to be entertained by.  Do the right thing, and that will fall into place.  The nation is sick of political strategy and outright lying, and ripe for the clear sound of truth.  They will be drawn to it.  Have some faith.

                          I'm going to ignore your other assumptions about me or my view that tend toward personal judgment on your part, once again.

                          •  No it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                            I do believe he's guilty of provable crimes. You are being passive aggressive, accusing me of what you're actually doing. That's projection.

                            I believe you are pie-in-the-sky, and aren't realistic about the speed of government.

                            I am, however, glad that you have your finger so firmly on the pulse of all American thought.

                            I will also ignore your assumptions about my assumptions, and agree to differ.

                            Have a good day, and wear good arch support when you march. Take care of your feet, and they will take care of you.

                            klaatu barada nikto

                            by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:04:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  Um, that "you" was the universal "you" (0+ / 0-)

                              trying to be polite here.

                              My Dad told me I was "pie-in-the-sky" and unrealistic for believing that the war with Iraq was illegal.  Those were his exact words.  Other less concerned people called me a communist and I got labelled liberal for the very first time.  Really horrible people called me a traitor and screamed in my face when I stood to oppose it, back when not many would.  So I guess what I'm saying is, you're not alone in your judgment, but some have changed their ideas about me personally along the way, so we shall see.  

                              I've already been in the streets, and town hall, and senator's offices, and door to door, the march goes on every day.  I was there before the war started, and I'll be there when the impeachment proceedings begin, really just a question of when.  

                              •  Well, I wish you luck (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                Karma for All

                                I'm sorry for your experiences, and I share a few of those. I really don't judge you that way. And if you need that anger to motivate you, well, God bless you, stay angry.

                                I believe that George Bush is checkmated in 6 moves, and nothing's going to stop it. Pelosi and those will not jump the gun.

                                I do whole-heartedly agree with you on your last sentence.

                                klaatu barada nikto

                                by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:41:33 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

    •  She doesn't look silly now? (2+ / 0-)

      Sitting there doing almost nothing?  The "investigations" and "hearings" are on-going.  Yeah, well much of what has come out of those investigations SO FAR is enough to get the process going.  

    •  Oh what a crock of BS! (3+ / 0-)

      You don't count the votes before you even start the process.  Where does such lunacy come from?  RW propaganda if you ask me.

      And we need to impeach regardless of the votes or outcome.  We need to demonstrate that we care enough to at least try to do the right thing.

      "The truth shall set you free - but first it'll piss you off." Gloria Steinem

      Iraq Moratorium

      by One Pissed Off Liberal on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:31:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Quite so OPOL, the Constitution must be (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        One Pissed Off Liberal

        defended, who will do so if not the Legislative branch at this point?  

      •  That's why they're politicians (0+ / 0-)

        and you're not.

        Why don't you run for Congress on the Impeach NOW!! platform?

        klaatu barada nikto

        by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:33:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which are they primarily, (2+ / 0-)

          Defenders of the Constitution as our Representatives

          or

          Politicians

          That seems to be what it has come down to.

          I myself feel that if we have relegated our representatives to their roles of politicians overall we may as well just give up on the Constitution right now.

          And it will be a cold day in hell before I give up on the Constitution.

        •  Why don't you run on the 'let the crooks (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          cometman, Karma for All

          get away scott free' platform?

          "The truth shall set you free - but first it'll piss you off." Gloria Steinem

          Iraq Moratorium

          by One Pissed Off Liberal on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:03:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not asking for crooks to get off scot free (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Superribbie, PsychoSavannah

            I want these guys impeached as much as you do. I just don't think that government works as fast as you would like it to.

            I think Pelosi was brilliant to "take impeachment off the table". People here screamed about that, but she killed a GOP talking point in its tracks. When was the last time you saw that happen? Rush Limbaugh and the AM radio army of hate wasn't able to yell from November 2nd until January 10th that all the Democrats wanted to do was get even for Clinton!! That kept focus on our agenda. When they passed the 100 hour agenda, the Dem's numbers went way up, and are still high compared to the GOP.

            Now, when the process reveals the president and VP to be complicit in all kinds of crimes, and start using any shred of power to tell congress to fuck off, the outcry for Impeachment will drive the process.

            klaatu barada nikto

            by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:13:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Government working as fast as Bush wants it to (0+ / 0-)

              only, I see.

            •  I agree that Pelosi's initial (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Superribbie, JohnGor0

              tabling of impeachment was very, very smart.  However, now the evidence is here....reams of it.  If they're waiting to catch GWB or Cheney in a lie while under oath, it will never happen.  They don't need to do that though.  Start with Gonzales....he's on tape flat-out lying.  Get him out of the front of Justice....that is the very first step.

              THE one scenario I read that I would love to see happen came from, I think, Turkana....start impeachment proceedings against Cheney.  Give GWB a list of moderate republicans who are not running for president to replace Cheney.  Once Cheney is gone, GWB's rep is shot, as is the GOP's.  The dirt that will come out from an impeachment of Cheney and Gonzales will rock this country.  And it needs to be rocked.  Every single nook and cranny of our political system, on both sides of the aisle, is filthy.  I can't tell you how many people simply won't pay attention to any of it because "they're all dirty", "they don't do anything on the up-and-up", "if their mouth is moving, they are lying".  After the last election, it is really, really hard to counter them.  And it gets harder every single day that impeachment proceedings aren't launched against the criminals in OUR white house.  

              •  I think Cheney or Gonzo will be the 1st offering (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Superribbie, PsychoSavannah

                I still think neither would get removed by the Senate until it really starts to hurt some of the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection next year.

                klaatu barada nikto

                by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:55:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's hurting republicans (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  JohnGor0, Karma for All

                  with so-called "safe" seats already.  Lindsay Graham is feeling the heat, here in SC of all places!  The Duke Cunningham business didn't get nearly enough press when it was going on and now it's just a faded memory.  Jack Abramoff?   That's a Jeopardy question at this point.  ALL of this needs to be in the nightly news every single night while the sleeping American masses wake up.  Once they become AWARE of what is actually happening, the congresscritters get their marching orders.  And for the nightly news to follow this doggedly, it will have to be sensational.  There has been TONS of information coming out.  But it's in dribs and drabs.  The majority of our society does not tolerate dribs and drabs.  We want flow charts and graphics and Clifts Notes versions of events.  A big graphic with checkmarks next to all the laws that were broken would be perfect!  :-)  Something along the lines of that Cheney as the 4th branch that went around earlier this week.....

                  We are agreeing on what needs to be done, just disagreeing on the order.  Love it!

                  P.S.  Gonzales has to go first.  He is their firewall and it needs to fall for anything else of consequence to happen.

                •  Do you support impeaching Gonzales? Today? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                  by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:21:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I support impeaching Gonzales. (0+ / 0-)

                    That was your first question.

                    Today? Do you have a specific time? It's 2:30pm, CDT. By the time they assemble a quorum, it would be well past quitting time.

                    Yes, I would love to see Gonzales impeached today. Do I think that me answering yes and denigrating my own party for not making it happen today? No.

                    klaatu barada nikto

                    by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:35:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I meant, knowing what you know today, would you (0+ / 0-)

                      support an effort to impeach Gonzales today?  What I'm getting at here is that you're not waiting around for more Republican support or more evidence of wrongdoing by Gonzales or more of something, right?

                      I think your answer is yes, but I'm just checking.  I don't see any political risk to attempting to impeach Gonzales, and it's also IMO the right thing to do.  I'm just checking to see if you agree or disagree.

                      Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                      by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:03:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't think there's any doubt (0+ / 0-)

                        that Gonzales is a criminal, has advanced Dementia, is just inept, or all of the above. He would be my first candidate to impeach.

                        I would support an effort to impeach him, and putting him on the gallows might begin to force the GOP's hand, and let them know the seriousness of this congress.

                        klaatu barada nikto

                        by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:44:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I do believe (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        cfaller96

                        he's dumb enough to continue to stonewall. He will either choose to not enforce the subpeonas, and that could trigger an impeachment effort.

                        klaatu barada nikto

                        by JohnGor0 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:45:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]