is the SOTU Address given under oath????

[ElsewheresDaughter]

if so he can be impeached... lying under oath???

[Aristus]

1. The State of the Union is Constitutionally mandated. "He shall, from time

to time..." He took an oath to, among other things, preserve the Constitution, so one could argue that he DID lie under oath.

[qandnotq]

4. his also swore to 'faithfully execute'

the duties of his office. and the SOTU address is a Constitutionally mandated duty. so, hell yes, he was under oath.

[CBGLuthier]

2. not under oath, but

Since it is constitutionally mandated I would think that lying during it should be an impeachable offense.

[jpgray]

3. He's under oath the whole time

he is president.

[Jane Eyre]

5. The only address required by the Constitution

The founding fathers thought that it was so important for the President to provide information to the elected officials in the Congress that they made it a mandate in the Constitution. The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution when he assumes office. Lying to Congress is a crime. Lying under oath is a crime.

The interesting thing about impeachment proceedings, of course, is that the Congress serves as the jury to determine whether or not a crime was committed by the president. As you will recall, Bill Clinton's big offense was fibbing under oath, according to the Republicans. Will they now say that Bush did not lie under oath because the oath of office is not the same thing as taking an oath on the witness stand? Will they use the fact that Clinton was not convicted to demand that their guy get off scott free?

Lying in a constitutionally-required address to Congress should be an impeachable offense. The SOTU is required specifically for the purpose of having the president provide information from the executive branch to the legislative branch. If Bush violated that part of the constitution, he should be toast.

[trof]

7. speech isn't required

just a "report from time to time".
Some presidents mailed it in.

[trof]

6. a stretch

Yes, he took the oath of office.
But "protect and defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic" gives wide latitude.
No, he doesn't go in and put his hand on the bible and swear that the SOTUS is the truth, the whole truth...etc.
If, and it's a big "IF" it can be shown that he took us into war for purely political and/or financial reasons then he could be impeached AND found guilty.
Given the present makeup of the house and senate it ain't likely.
We don't have enough "good" republicans who will put the nation above their own political interests like we did during Watergate. Even that was politically motivated in part by the repugs. They came to realize they just could not live with Nixon any more. He had put their own reelection in jeopardy.
If that begins to happen with *, then yeah, there's a chance.

[TahitiNut]

8. Compare Mickey Mouth's lies to Congress ...

... and the people of the US in the SOTU, to Ken Lay's lies to stockholders and employees regarding the state of Enron. "Business as usual" for some. :puke:

[skip2mylou]

9. Does it mean anything

that the congress gave shrub their vote to go to war three months before the SOTU?

[KCS72000]

10. Future Presidents should have to swear an oath

When giving the SOTU Address, they should call it the "Bush Formality" or something like that,
so they are reminded that a president did lie.


(Seriously though this is not a good Idea, there are too many variables and interpretations, to hold a rigid standard like that,
every future president would be impeached)