|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
![]() |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:37 PM Original message |
IMPEACHMENT BYPASS! There IS another legal way to remove the President |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yourout
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:39 PM Response to Original message |
1. Kind of like a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mattclearing
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 09:20 AM Response to Reply #1 |
70. Exactly like a no confidence vote. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Podface
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 09:42 AM Response to Reply #1 |
71. Not so Fast. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BrklynLiberal
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:40 PM Response to Original message |
2. So now th e2006 elections are even more critical..which means BushCo, Rove |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Radio_Lady
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:40 PM Response to Original message |
3. Forget it! ALL OF THE ABOVE folks are MOSTLY Republicans |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tace
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:40 PM Response to Original message |
4. Wow -- You Are On The Case! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PatsFan2004
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:41 PM Response to Original message |
5. Can this interpretation make it past the Supreme Court? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:43 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. It's not even STRETCHING any part of the Constitution... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PatsFan2004
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:45 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. Yeah, but I am remembering Dec 2000. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:47 PM Response to Reply #8 |
12. The Supreme Court Ruled on a completely different issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
librechik
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 03:52 AM Response to Reply #12 |
56. IMO, after that "opinion" we have no constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dweller
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:49 PM Response to Reply #8 |
13. that case doesn't set precedence |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Qibing Zero
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:47 PM Response to Reply #6 |
11. Very doubtful. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dweller
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:44 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. CRAP!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Amonester
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:46 PM Response to Original message |
9. Good find! Nominate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tx_dem41
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:47 PM Response to Original message |
10. Your interpretation of the phrase "shall be" is 180 degrees wrong.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:53 PM Response to Reply #10 |
19. Legal definition of "shall" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tx_dem41
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:54 PM Response to Reply #19 |
22. Key phrases...."some statutes" and "depends upon the context". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:59 PM Response to Reply #22 |
27. The bottom line is that impeachment is NOT the only means of removal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dweller
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:56 PM Response to Reply #19 |
23. ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nothingshocksmeanymore
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 01:01 AM Response to Reply #19 |
48. Actually that site is not correct. The word "shall" implies MANDATORY |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
oddtext
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:54 PM Response to Reply #10 |
20. as a lawyer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:58 PM Response to Reply #20 |
26. The bottom line is that impeachment is NOT the only means of removal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigbrother05
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 03:36 AM Response to Reply #26 |
54. The use of shall is the emphatic. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Brightmore
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:49 PM Response to Original message |
14. There is also this way |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yupster
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:51 PM Response to Original message |
15. When they're saying the congress chooses the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leveymg
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:51 PM Response to Original message |
16. The Other Way: Congress removes the Prez, but any court can convict him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kodi
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:52 PM Response to Original message |
17. back it up with something from the Federalist Papers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:54 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. Why don't you try proving me wrong instead, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:23 AM Response to Reply #21 |
37. Deleted message |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:28 AM Response to Reply #37 |
40. Wow, using republican tactics of name calling... great argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:47 AM Response to Reply #40 |
45. Deleted message |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:53 AM Response to Reply #45 |
47. You are completely disrespectful |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 02:33 AM Response to Reply #47 |
52. Deleted message |
TankLV
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 02:10 AM Response to Reply #45 |
51. Hey - he quoted the direct text, goddammit! You need to provide the proof |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 03:43 AM Response to Reply #51 |
55. Deleted message |
tritsofme
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 04:55 AM Response to Reply #55 |
58. Thanks for putting this silly theory to rest. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 05:55 AM Response to Reply #58 |
59. ditto |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 06:43 AM Response to Reply #55 |
60. Deleted message |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:23 AM Response to Reply #17 |
38. Ok, Here you go: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:47 AM Response to Reply #17 |
44. Here's another point from past presidents and founding fathers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
garybeck
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:52 PM Response to Original message |
18. what are you smoking and can I have some? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:56 PM Response to Reply #18 |
24. Legal definition of "shall" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
halobeam
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:11 AM Response to Reply #24 |
32. honest questions here... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:14 AM Response to Reply #32 |
34. Is Impeachment the only way to remove a president |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mairead
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 07:07 AM Response to Reply #34 |
66. You should really read Madison's transcript of the 1787 Convention |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AuntiBush
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:57 PM Response to Original message |
25. The Biggest Pile in American History! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nicknameless
![]() |
Wed Sep-07-05 11:59 PM Response to Original message |
28. Can we hear from DU legal experts on this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
atre
![]() |
Sat Sep-10-05 04:20 PM Response to Reply #28 |
77. Not an expert, but this argument is crap |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tace
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:00 AM Response to Original message |
29. Berni -- Did Your Thread Earlier On Court Martial Get Yanked? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:02 AM Response to Reply #29 |
30. No, I just conceded it was not going to work... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dweller
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:06 AM Response to Reply #30 |
31. god, what a catch-22 that is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Trillo
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:51 AM Response to Reply #30 |
46. Too bad about that AWOL status. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:12 AM Response to Original message |
33. Creative, but unsupportable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:16 AM Response to Reply #33 |
35. That would mean if the president became disabled |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:34 AM Response to Reply #35 |
42. yep, he'd be compensated because he's still president |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:18 AM Response to Reply #33 |
36. and there's also the 20th Amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FlaGranny
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:25 AM Response to Original message |
39. No way, really, because |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:29 AM Response to Reply #39 |
41. It would only be temporary. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dweller
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 12:38 AM Response to Original message |
43. ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
firefox
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 01:21 AM Response to Original message |
49. Recommended - cannot discuss Constitution enough n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TankLV
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 02:05 AM Response to Original message |
50. Why yes there is - they did it with Kennedy, McKinley, Garfield & Lincoln |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ladylibertee
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 02:39 AM Response to Original message |
53. Why do you toy with me...... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wizard777
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 04:19 AM Response to Original message |
57. I thought you were going to toss out the Old Congressional Immunity. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Backlash Cometh
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 06:45 AM Response to Original message |
61. "Shall" is a strong legal term. Sorry. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Seabiscuit
![]() |
Fri Sep-09-05 02:49 AM Response to Reply #61 |
73. That was my first thought. "Shall" is a very strong "must", sorry to say. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vinca
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 06:52 AM Response to Original message |
62. The key word is "Congress." It's Republican. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MildyRules
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 06:59 AM Response to Reply #62 |
64. The ONLY key word is "Shall" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ochazuke
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 09:16 AM Response to Reply #64 |
69. Right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProdigalJunkMail
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 06:55 AM Response to Original message |
63. you are so far out on a limb it is laughable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Silverhair
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 07:02 AM Response to Original message |
65. No Way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
berni_mccoy
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 07:53 AM Response to Original message |
67. I thought DU was a forum for discussion of ideas |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
petgoat
![]() |
Fri Sep-09-05 02:45 AM Response to Reply #67 |
72. Regardless of Whether Congress Can Call for a New Election, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
H2O Man
![]() |
Thu Sep-08-05 07:59 AM Response to Original message |
68. Not. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dzika
![]() |
Sat Sep-10-05 08:40 AM Response to Original message |
74. kick n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RogerARTcom
![]() |
Sat Sep-10-05 02:05 PM Response to Original message |
75. WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock
![]() |
Sat Sep-10-05 03:51 PM Response to Original message |
76. if the founders had intended a no confidence vote, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Independent_Liberal
![]() |
Sat Sep-10-05 04:31 PM Response to Original message |
78. Congress people can be recalled. Check this out... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Sat Sep-10-05 05:16 PM Response to Original message |
79. Wrong wrong WRONG! You are missing something big: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Tue Jun 18th 2024, 04:01 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
![]() |
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