Impeach Bush?

[CessnaFlyer]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
For consideration again:
Impeachment? Try a trial for treason.

4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

-- No probable cause is presented, yet the government is searching our electronic effects without warrants. This goes against the documents our nation was founded on.


Article VI, US Constitution
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."


Sounds pretty clear. The Bush administration has authorized searching of citizens' effects, which is illegal per the 4th Amendment. Article VI of the Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land, and the President must also obey that law.


Presidential oath:
"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."

He has not defended the Constitution. To the contrary, he has intentionally violated parts of its very core. At the very least that counts as lying under oath.
Taking it a bit further:
treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Violation of allegiance toward one's country. He violated the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, after swearing an oath to protect and defend it.

That applies to every President in the last 60 years!

 

[CessnaFlyer]

Originally posted by: martinez
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld..... They're all complete fuckwits.

No they aren't!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I hesitantly say no.

btw, Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

If I remember right, his impeachment had a 35% public approval rating.

I think Bush's would be higher by a bit.

:thumbsup:

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: martinez
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.....most of us think They're all complete fuckwits.

No they aren't!

corrected!

*edit* - grmr

 

[Red Dawn]

Impeach Bush?? Are you crazy? If that happened Herr Cheney would become our leader.:shocked:

 

[CessnaFlyer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Impeach Bush?? Are you crazy? If that happened Herr Cheney would become our leader.:shocked:

Cheney would be better than Bush!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Impeach Bush?? Are you crazy? If that happened Herr Cheney would become our leader.:shocked:

Cheney would be better than Bush!

Hell it might as well be Cheney, he's the Dub's puppet master with his arm elbow deep up Bushes ass any way.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
He's already indicated to congress that exact intent! Too tired to find the link, but I read this somewhere, in the past few weeks. Unless someone else finds it, I'll find it and be back tomorrow.

Yes, please do try to find this link.
Edit: Searched for "bush remain past term" on Google. Yeah, apparently April Fools on The Register. For now anyway.
I think I will vote for any president who swears to abolish April Fools day.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Impeach Bush?? Are you crazy? If that happened Herr Cheney would become our leader.:shocked:

And what would change? It's not like Bush is the decision maker anyway. Bush is an idiot puppet with a slew of folks pulling his strings.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Impeach Bush?? Are you crazy? If that happened Herr Cheney would become our leader.:shocked:

During the first Nixon administration, there were bumper stickers that said, "Get Spiro, first!/" The same applies for this administration. It's important to get both of them and the rest of the lying traitors at the same time.

I'm serious about calling them traitors. Anyone in that position who selectively leaks classified information for political gamesmanship. Anyone in that position who outs a CIA covert agent in an attempt to cover up and distract attention from their own lies is a traitor. The same is true for anyone who takes a nation to a war costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars when that war is based on lies after lies after lies. :|

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Impeach Bush?? Are you crazy? If that happened Herr Cheney would become our leader.:shocked:

During the first Nixon administration, there were bumper stickers that said, "Get Spiro, first!"

Heh, you are right, I remember my parents had a sticker that said that when I was a kid.

Get Cheney, First!

 

[BenWilliams]

I think that's he's committed impeachable offenses, but I don't think he will be impeached, and I don't think he should be impeached.

Impeachment exists for when a President is so dangerous that he can't be allowed to remain until the end of his term for office. I don't think that's the case. We'll have to see where Iran goes, I suppose.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would only impeach him to ensure we get someone who ensures the protection of our sovereignty and our borders. Problem is, the parties would guarantee that the next person in fact continues our proud tradition of selling out the country.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: BenWilliams
I think that's he's committed impeachable offenses, but I don't think he will be impeached, and I don't think he should be impeached.

Impeachment exists for when a President is so dangerous that he can't be allowed to remain until the end of his term for office. I don't think that's the case. We'll have to see where Iran goes, I suppose.

Bush has gotten tens of thousands of innocent people killed, including 2000+ American soldiers, on a war he started in our name under false pretenses. He has squandered an enormous amount of this country's wealth on this war, and now he's talking about starting another one. How much more dangerous does he need to be?

 

[Stunt]

The Iraq story was fully developed when the President was up for re-election...he was given another mandate. Unless the grounds for impeachment was something other than the Iraq war, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Xecuter]

Yessirree Bob (George?) - We should impeach Bush

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Stunt
The Iraq story was fully developed when the President was up for re-election...he was given another mandate. Unless the grounds for impeachment was something other than the Iraq war, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure I'd call 1% of the vote a "mandate".

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Stunt
The Iraq story was fully developed when the President was up for re-election...he was given another mandate. Unless the grounds for impeachment was something other than the Iraq war, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure I'd call 1% of the vote a "mandate".

First off it was 3% and 51% is a mandate.

Not one of our federal Canadian elections has had a winning party over 47%, 40% is usually enough to get a majority. Does that mean I should not be supporting any of my country's governments?

 

[Engineer]

It won't happen but I would dance if the bastard were to be impeached.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Impeaching Clinton for his transgressions but not impeaching Bush for his would send a very disturbing message to not only the world, but our society now and in the future, about the priorities of the American system. IMHO.

It would be no surprise however. Simply view the American ethos in regards to violence and sex as proof. We, as a whole, have an almost unlimited appetite for violence and gore and don't blink when the most brutal, horrific of violent acts is simulated on prime time TV. Simulate sex too graphically however, one of the most natural acts a human being can engage in and the second strongest instinct human's possess, or, lord have mercy, show nudity on prime TV and all hell breaks loose and the wrath of the government is brought down upon broadcasters.

Impeach for sex and lying.... complain and express outrage over sex on TV.
Ignore disastrous war resulting in tens of thousands of dead civillians alone and avalanche of lies in support of it... eagerly lap up violence and gore on our way to making the CSI franchise billions.

Sick, sick, sick.

Clinton was not empeached, in the classical sense of the word, he was only censured.

No, he was literally impeached.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BenWilliams
I think that's he's committed impeachable offenses, but I don't think he will be impeached, and I don't think he should be impeached.

Impeachment exists for when a President is so dangerous that he can't be allowed to remain until the end of his term for office. I don't think that's the case. We'll have to see where Iran goes, I suppose.

Throughout history, the dangerous scourge of oral sex has killed billions....













....of sperm.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Stunt
The Iraq story was fully developed when the President was up for re-election...he was given another mandate. Unless the grounds for impeachment was something other than the Iraq war, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure I'd call 1% of the vote a "mandate".

First off it was 3% and 51% is a mandate.

Not one of our federal Canadian elections has had a winning party over 47%, 40% is usually enough to get a majority. Does that mean I should not be supporting any of my country's governments?

Out of how many parties?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: General Texas
I'm new to the community, so for me this is post #1. Hope you guys don't hate on the new guy, but I have my $0.02 to add.

First off I'm no Bush fan at all. However, he is the elected leader and we are stuck with him for another few years. The Clinton impeachment was a dumb waste of time, and should be an embarassment to the Republican politicians that voted for impeachment. I believe impeachment should never be used unless in the most dire circumstances; not just for political gain as was the case for Clinton. Fact of the matter is, there's just not enough information at this point to support impeachment. We impeach two presidents in a row, we're setting up each future president for impeachment for minor issues.

Besides what would change? Cheney would be president, so not much. Sure, Congress could impeach both Bush and Cheney, then we're stuck with Hastert. I guess if the Democrats gained control they could impeach Bush and Cheney and hope their Speaker of the House gets a nice promotion. Personally, that's almost like a coup in a sort of way and I would hope wouldn't happen unless there is a very strong reason behind it.

The voters can decide in a few years if we should have more of the same by voting a strong Bush ally, or if it's time for a change. Personally I'd love a change, but the Democratic party has given me little hope there is a decent alternative.

Just because you've chosen not to avail yourself of the knowledge doesn't mean that there isn't enough data to support an impeachment. If high-crimes and misdemeanors is the standard, and our prosperity and standing as a nation are at stake then impeachment is the remedy. Your entire approach to this situation seams to be based on expediency. Since the process of removing Bush wouldn't be easy, or pretty, the country should suffer an arrogant, posturing fool in the white house for the remainder of his term. This attitude is not only self-defeating, it's the primary reason why things grow worse and worse, no matter which party controls the country.

If Bush isn't held accountable for what he's done, how can we expect the next president to be any better? As things are, it's actually reasonable to expect even worse.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: Stunt
The Iraq story was fully developed when the President was up for re-election...he was given another mandate. Unless the grounds for impeachment was something other than the Iraq war, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure I'd call 1% of the vote a "mandate".

First off it was 3% and 51% is a mandate.

Not one of our federal Canadian elections has had a winning party over 47%, 40% is usually enough to get a majority. Does that mean I should not be supporting any of my country's governments?

Out of how many parties?

Depending on the history, between 2 and 4 major ones. Sometimes two left splitting the vote, sometimes two right splitting the vote. 51% is a legitimate mandate and to argue anything other than that would be ignorant.

Clinton won in '92 with 43% and in '96 with 49%.

 

[Lemon law]

The evidence to impeach and convict is already in on Bush's domestic spying. Bush's lone defense is his AG said it was ok---and it not unheard of in American history to send a few of those AG's to jail.

What is now missing is support in Congress for impeachment. This support is now lacking but could come with any new scandal or Iraq really blowing up in Bush's face. We must remember that exactly 32 years ago come August Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. And it was the Repubs who were most eagar to grease the skids for RMN---because only by ridding themselves of Nixon could the Repubs stop the bleeding and minimise what they would lose in the upcoming mid-term elections.

With Nixon it took at least 18 months of careful preparation to prove a case of obstruction of justice.
With GWB, the charge is already a slam dunk--with just one congresional subpeona required to expose the extent of domestic spying--and that exposed extent will horrify us all.