Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Reply #28: Impeach (accuse) or dismiss the charges. Anything less is dereliction of duty. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov-24-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. Impeach (accuse) or dismiss the charges. Anything less is dereliction of duty.
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 02:31 PM by pat_k
When the Constitution is under attack, Members of Congress are sworn to defend it. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against threats that come from within the halls of power. The question before each and every Member of Congress in the current crisis is this: "Is there a legitimate case that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution?

Numerous charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public. Elected bodies, good government organizations, citizens' groups, and countless individuals have examined the evidence and judged Bush and Cheney to be an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy.

Their duty demands that they be "on the lookout" for threats. Each and every Member of Congress who claims ignorance of the charges against Bush and Cheney and the evidence that has been put before them is willfully turning a blind eye and is thus derelict in their duty to support and defend.

Each and every Members of Congress who is aware of charges that an official is abusing the power of their office to subvert the Constitution or for personal gain is duty-bound to judge the charges as having merit or to dismiss them as baseless.

The power to formally accuse lies with the House. Each and every member of that body who has concluded that there is a legitimate case that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat is duty-bound to act (e.g., introduce articles of impeachment). They're oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." Even if they believe it will be "the charge of the light brigade" they are bound by oath to take up the fight.

If they believe they need something more to make a judgment, they are duty-bound to actively seek it. If what they seek is out of reach, they must render judgment on the information at hand. If they find they are unable to dismiss the charges, then the charges have merit and they are duty-bound to move forward and call on their colleagues to impeach and put the charges before the Senate for final judgment.

Calls for investigation say one thing: "We don't have enough information." With regard to the charges against Bush and Cheney, all the information required to make a judgment is in the public record (link). The limbo of "I don't know" is not an escape. Vague claims to "need more information" are no better than the limbo of "I don't know."

Their oath is an individual oath. They bear personal responsibility for the damage done each day that they betray their oath by unnecessarily putting off their duty to judge.

Every day that they do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens who are calling on them to act. They do so at their peril. The citizens who are taking up the fight for impeachment are a very active bunch who will not quietly accept the dismissive contempt of their elected officials for long.

Every day that they do nothing they effectively exonerate Bush and Cheney. If exoneration is their intent they should do it honestly and tell the nation the reasons that they have concluded that the public's accusations are baseless -- a conclusion that is at odds with the majority of Americans who want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress (link).

Dereliction through inaction is bad enough, but those who are mindlessly balking with claims that the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is "it's off the table" (no reason or justification, it's just off, period) are declaring their intent to betray their oath. (Throwing away the only weapon they have to defend against presidential abuse of power is "pre-emptive" surrender.)

If Speaker-Elect Pelosi does not withdraw her "impeachment is off the table" pledge, the oath she administers to the 110th Congress will require revision:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and be derelict in my duty
to
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will
bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will
well and faithfully negligently and
faithlessly
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:

So help me God.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  When does the Bush impeachment begin? Copperred  Nov-23-06 10:02 PM   #0 
   As soon as pragmatic ,get along shit ends .Impeachment or Bust!!!  orpupilofnature57   Nov-23-06 10:03 PM   #1 
   Bust--Pelosi says it's off the table and Conyers agrees. n/t  elocs   Nov-23-06 11:50 PM   #3 
   Wow! An Impeachment Now post without a greatest recommendation. Inconceivable!  elocs   Nov-23-06 11:48 PM   #2 
   No more coddling of the criminals  BeFree   Nov-23-06 11:55 PM   #4 
   Impeachment is a Constitutional imperative. - n/t  porphyrian   Nov-23-06 11:58 PM   #5 
   Ummm, No It Isn't. Not By Any Means. It's A Political Decision Used With The Voluntary Discretion  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 12:10 AM   #8 
   I just love to have you contradict and dismiss me, man.  porphyrian   Nov-24-06 12:13 AM   #9 
   Don't Flatter Yourself. It Ain't About You. It Is About Accuracy And Fact.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 12:19 AM   #10 
      See?  porphyrian   Nov-24-06 12:28 AM   #12 
         You Just Described Why You Believe There To Be Cause For Impeachment. That's A Far Cry From It  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 12:32 AM   #13 
         If you deny it enough, it may cover your refusal to understand what I've said.  porphyrian   Nov-24-06 12:38 AM   #15 
            "We can fight all day over my choice of vocabulary"  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 12:50 AM   #17 
               Take care. - n/t  porphyrian   Nov-24-06 12:56 AM   #18 
               Defense of the Constitution demands impeachment.  petgoat   Nov-24-06 01:44 PM   #25 
                  "That's what makes impeachment a Constitutional imperative"  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 02:51 PM   #30 
                  Is so. Bush's actions stand as precedents until they are  petgoat   Nov-24-06 10:15 PM   #33 
                  Sorry but it is a Constitutional imperative.  conscious evolution   Nov-24-06 10:59 PM   #34 
                     No, It 100% Isn't. You Declaring It Such Doesn't Make It So.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 11:49 PM   #35 
                        Do you know what the word oath means?  conscious evolution   Nov-25-06 12:06 AM   #36 
                           Nice Try. Your Point Is Still Irrelevant And Your Argument Still Refuted.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-25-06 12:44 AM   #37 
                              This is getting interesting  conscious evolution   Nov-25-06 01:49 PM   #39 
                              I just noticed  conscious evolution   Nov-25-06 02:53 PM   #43 
                  Yes it does! But I thought we had to vestigate first :>>>>)  lonestarnot   Nov-25-06 08:07 PM   #50 
                     Investigate to confirm what's obvious on its face from the facts. nt  petgoat   Nov-25-06 09:45 PM   #51 
         Exactly, why have laws ,  bahrbearian   Nov-24-06 10:58 AM   #21 
   Impeach (accuse) or dismiss the charges. Anything less is dereliction of duty.  pat_k   Nov-24-06 02:22 PM   #28 
      This Is So Over The Top, Over Zealous And Quite Simply Incorrect.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 05:11 PM   #32 
         Dems role in protecting the constitution  petgoat   Nov-25-06 02:15 PM   #40 
   I love to hear the Truth, thanks porphyrian  Freeusfromthechurch   Nov-24-06 01:02 PM   #23 
   Well, don't consider me a reliable source, but you're welcome.  porphyrian   Nov-25-06 05:39 PM   #46 
   Members are bound by oath to act. The power to impeach is the weapon . . .  pat_k   Nov-24-06 02:58 PM   #31 
   It started November 7. Patience.  buddysmellgood   Nov-24-06 12:01 AM   #6 
   It Doesn't.  OPERATIONMINDCRIME   Nov-24-06 12:08 AM   #7 
   Yes, investigations first. We, the people, must be armed with truth.  Theduckno2   Nov-24-06 12:47 AM   #16 
   In fact, there IS an impeachment effort under way.  anotheryellowdog   Nov-24-06 12:20 AM   #11 
   Never.  Aya Reiko   Nov-24-06 12:37 AM   #14 
   "we need actual evidence."  petgoat   Nov-24-06 01:47 PM   #26 
   Copperred....where are you? You've been here since 2003  alittlelark   Nov-24-06 01:59 AM   #19 
   Ark, I travel allot and post selectively...  Copperred   Nov-24-06 09:27 AM   #20 
   Patience my pretty  catmandu57   Nov-24-06 11:42 AM   #22 
   You need to insist on it  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-24-06 01:04 PM   #24 
   First there will be committees set up for investigations of  Cleita   Nov-24-06 01:53 PM   #27 
   My guess?  baby_mouse   Nov-24-06 02:27 PM   #29 
   not any time soon, if ever  onenote   Nov-25-06 01:13 AM   #38 
   You seem to be taking the fact that the Democratic poobahs  petgoat   Nov-25-06 02:25 PM   #41 
      whatever the reason, impeachment wasn't an issue in the elections  onenote   Nov-25-06 04:26 PM   #44 
         The public did not swear to defend the Constitution. The  petgoat   Nov-25-06 05:25 PM   #45 
            And if you don't like how the legislature operates, vote them out  onenote   Nov-25-06 06:07 PM   #47 
               Sometimes leaders have to do what's right even when it's  petgoat   Nov-25-06 08:02 PM   #49 
                  so you acknowledge, in effect, that the public isn't ready for impeachment  onenote   Nov-26-06 07:45 AM   #52 
                     I acknowledge nothing of the sort.  petgoat   Nov-26-06 01:25 PM   #54 
                        and why didn't the "poo-bahs" want to "cloud" local races with that referndum  onenote   Nov-26-06 05:40 PM   #56 
                           You'd have to ask them. I'd suggest it would have been a  petgoat   Nov-26-06 06:01 PM   #57 
   Answer: Unfortunately, when hell freezes over. With Feingold and  Seabiscuit   Nov-25-06 02:31 PM   #42 
   It's up to the people to push for Impeachment.  TheGoldenRule   Nov-25-06 06:18 PM   #48 
   great links- thanks!  Founders Know Best   Nov-26-06 12:34 PM   #53 
   Hate to break it to ya, but you can hardly muster a majority on DU to support immediate impeachment  Bucky   Nov-26-06 01:27 PM   #55 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC