Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What about impeachment?

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.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Marymarg Donating Member (773 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 12:50 PM
Original message
What about impeachment?
I have yet to see an in-depth debate about the +/- of presenting Articles of Impeachment against GWB. I have seen opinion expressed from time to time but I would really like to see some good rationale expressed, for or against.

These are the points I would make:

If Articles of Impeachment were drawn up:

the onus would be on the Republicans to deny them. Repubs would then be on record as defending him and his policies, making them culpable to the charge of being accomplices.

it would (or should) constantly be in the news, putting and keeping Bush & Co. on the defensive. The public would have to think about these things or go out of their way not to think about them.

it would show to the country and to the world how dead serious we take our rights, the Constitution, and our freedoms. It would send the message that there we are not going to take this sham of a Presidency and illegitimate government, anymore.

On the other hand, I know that this strategy could backfire. GWB could be placed in the role of victim of unpatriotic liberals. So, it might be better to get across the fact that although GWB deserves impeachment, we don't want to put the country through that again, especially after the Clinton trumped-up nonsense sullied the process into an absurdity, making us the laughingstock of the world. Instead, we will wait for the election which we demand to be fair, not rigged.

To bring Articles of Impeachment does not mean that it is necessarily a wasted effort if the result is not removal from office. Just bringing them up speaks volumes about what is going on in the country. Our image in the world is so vitally important and has been so tarnished by this regime of crooks and goons that I would like to see us project a better one, more reflective of the country I love.

I am not sure which would be better but I do believe that to dismiss the possibility out of hand because it is impossible to kick him out is to underestimate other advantageous outcomes. I would like for the Bush loyalists who have been behind him, encouraging his rotten agenda, to be held accountable and not be able to jump ship, unscathed when everything comes to a head. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. If he should "win" in 2004
If he steals another election, impeachment would be the way to go. As it is right now, we don't stand much of a chance, and it wouldn't get him out much before 1/2005, anyway. Plus, I don't want them impeaching our next guy out of revenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. impeachment is all but impossible in a GOP led house-see the email I got
from my congressman about censure. With GOP in power even if somebody wrote up articles, they'd never get a hearing




Thank you for contacting me to express your support for censuring President Bush. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Many scholars believe, and I agree, that there is no constitutional basis or precedent for the use of censure to discipline a sitting president. The Constitution only prescribes one method - the impeachment process - for Congress to discipline the President. Furthermore, the U.S. House of Representatives is charged only with the responsibility of voting on Articles of Impeachment, which are similar to an indictment. It is the duty of the Senate to determine if any Articles of Impeachment approved by the House warrant the President's removal from office. Therefore, any decision regarding an alternative form of punishment such as censure lies with the Senate, and I believe it would be inappropriate for the House to seriously address any resolution of censure.

Even if the Constitution permitted censure, I would not support censuring President Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq. I firmly believe that our actions in Iraq were justified. They resulted from Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with ten U.N. resolutions, despite countless diplomatic efforts and prolonged international pressure. President Bush acted within his authority as Commander-in-Chief and within the bounds of the authority granted to him by Congress in H.J. Res 144, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.

Whether or not you supported the war in Iraq at the outset - and I understand that there is a legitimate debate on that issue - we should all now be in agreement that we must win the peace. If we fail, the enemies of freedom will be emboldened and our war on terror will be weakened.

Thank you again for contacting me.


John Shadegg
Congressman
Arizona 3rd District
U.S. House of Representatives


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The Rhetoric remains the same
even though the facts are clearly different. Please pardon my ignorance here if I'm mistaken, but aren't the "failure to comply" that Saddam apparently violated that we felt he didn't disarm and our pResident maintained that there were WMD he failed to rid himself of? They also said he didn't allow the inspectors in, but he finally did, until we threw them out, arrogantly adding insults about their incompetence, so we could start our war against them.

Our representatives know the facts better than me, but my underlying feeling that this country is getting screwed big time is consistently confirmed everyday. So why do the representatives, on both sides, still act like we're stupid, especially when they're responding to someone paying attention?

By the way, Rice lied under oath. That's impeachable. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz need to be tried for war crimes, as Poppa Bush was tried and found guilty after the first gulf war. This time, though, something needs to be done about it. The whole world needs to know about these crooks. Oh that's right, the world knows. Just half the Americans have a hard time understanding this.

Our election is already rigged. Even with a landslide, we could easily lose the election. We need to do everything to get these corrupt jerks out, before, during or after November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. exposing my ignorance...
big bush was tried and found guilty of war crimes? be gentle with me... :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Can't find the exact link I read before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. thanks, Proud_Lefty! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. If he is truly for justice, he would file the articles himself...
It is possible, given the current climate, that we will see a serious IMPEACH BUSH wave roll in.



http://www.cafeshops.com/indigobusiness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left_Wing_Fox Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Better than impeachment
Unfortunately with Republican control of Congress, and some turncoats like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman in there as well, it would be a quixotic gesture. Worse the next two people in line for the position of President if Bush is removed I believe would be Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay.

Want either of them for president?

I think it's much better to get Kerry elected this year. Work in your community as hard as possible to eliminate voting machines that do lot use a paper trail. Get as many Green, Independant and moderates to get out and Vote Kerry.

Once Kerry is in, then I suggest we petition Kerry to rejoin the International Criminal Courts, and send Ashcroft, Rummy, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest of this Neoconservative cabal to the Haige. Let them stand trial next to Milisovich and Saddam as the genocidal maniacs the rest of the world knows them to be.

Just my 2 cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. order of pResidential succession
Order of Presidential Succession
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate president pro tempore1 was next in line after the vice president to succeed to the presidency, followed by the Speaker of the House.

In 1886, however, Congress changed the order of presidential succession, replacing the president pro tempore and the Speaker with the cabinet officers. Proponents of this change argued that the congressional leaders lacked executive experience, and none had served as president, while six former secretaries of state had later been elected to that office.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed by President Harry Truman, changed the order again to what it is today. The cabinet members are ordered in the line of succession according to the date their offices were established.

Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there was no provision for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. When a president died in office, the vice president succeeded him, and the vice presidency then remained vacant. The first vice president to take office under the new procedure was Gerald Ford, who was nominated by Nixon on Oct. 12, 1973, and confirmed by Congress the following Dec. 6.

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
Secretary of Education Roderick Paige
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi
Secretary of Homeland Security2 Tom Ridge
NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.
1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. By tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.
2. May move to number 8 on the list pending legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lizz612 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. I really don't think its a good idea
I can see the spin on this one miles away. "We impeached their president and now they're just trying to get us back. Besides Bush never lied under oath, which is what Clinton was impeached for." Sorry but this would backfire so fast its not even something I seriously consider. I want this guy to get his comeuppance as much as the next person, thats why I think we need to join the international court, try him for war crimes and send him to the Hague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. Impeach Him After He Looses The Election
Think about it, an impeachment after he looses the office, during his lame duck period. Throw the son of a bitch out on his ass anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. can you say, "backfire"?
That knife can too easily turn in your hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-15-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Good point.
And well stated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) 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 Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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 |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC