Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 35 of 35

Thread: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

  1. #26
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Weekend Reports
    Btw, just a curious question, but do you feel he should be tried for violations of international law ?
    Honestly, I don't have any idea what international laws he may have violated.

    But to write off WJC's perjury because it was about getting his cock sucked ignores the fact that he denied Paula Jones due process under a law that WJC himself signed into existence two years earlier! And yet, women continue to be WJC's biggest defenders! They defended his "right" to violate, abuse and, if Kathleen Wiley and others vilified in the press corps are to be believed, rape other women!
    Honestly - I have no idea what you are talking about right now. I am not going to pretend that I can converse intelligently on the sexual habits of your former president. However I feel on reasonably firm ground asserting that the perjury that was referred to earlier had to do with being sucked off by M.L. So I don't see how that is ignoring the facts of which you speak - it is simply limiting its scope to the the elements of the impeachment. If it makes you feel any better, I am firmly against Presidents using their position to sexually harrass their interns. Or anyone else. Not just interns. And I am firmly against all forms of rape, no matter which party affiliate - really I think even our Conservative Party is pretty left wing by your guys's standards, so to us you all look the same.

    That being said - since I don't know. The issue surrounding Clinton's perjury was specifically related to M.L. and oral sex - yes? And surely we can agree that although all (or most) lying is bad, some lies are worse than others? Like a man lying to his wife about having consensual sex with a prostitute is perhaps not as bad as him lying to his wife about killing small boys?
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  2. #27
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    I'm curious to know, as an upcoming law student.. does anyone know the rules of impeachment?
    The authority for impeachment is outlined in the Constitution. From Article Two of the US Constitution:

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
    Congress then determines the rules for impeachment by establishing impeachment committees and then putting it to a vote.

    However I feel on reasonably firm ground asserting that the perjury that was referred to earlier had to do with being sucked off by M.L. So I don't see how that is ignoring the facts of which you speak - it is simply limiting its scope to the the elements of the impeachment.
    Jenny, I'm not saying you're defending violence against women; what I'm saying is that women's groups in this country were silent and they let women that WJC victimized twist in the wind. Can you imagine that happening with GWB? I think not. Since you're not clear on the history, here it is in a nutshell:

    WJC lied in grand jury testimony as part of the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit--a suit that was allowed to come to trial as a result of WJC's signing into law legislation that basically allowed the sexual history of suspects and accused to be entered into court proceedings--a seriously prejudicial law, and a mistake by any objective measure, one signed under pressure of women's groups such as NOW. His lying about his oral sex with Lewinsky was denying Paula Jones her due process rights during her case; WJC also attempted to obstruct justice by witness tampering. These are the key issues. Whether or not perjury is a high crime or misdemeanor is perennially up for debate.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  3. #28
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    A defendent has no power to deny due process or any rights at all. In this case Clinton was not an officer of the court. What you have described is two completely separate trials - one is dealing with whether or not WJC lied about a consensual blowjob, and the other with whether or not he sexually harassed someone.

    As to whether or not Jones would have been left twisting in the wind under Bush - no, you're absolutely right. NOW is an institution and therefore, like all others, has to, occasionally decide whether or not to support an individual or its own political agenda. This is not likely to be a problem under Bush - under Bush everything will be going in one direction, right?
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  4. #29
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Gynger if you wouldn't mind, I would be very interested if you could elaborate on the following question. You perspective would be much appreciated.

    In terms of Pres. impeachment :

    What qualifies as high crimes ?

    Jenny- as I understand it going to war without the approval of the United Nations is a violation of international law.

    The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.

    In addition to that The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Bush is the agressor in this situation. Iraq made no threats or attacks against the United States prior to Bush declaring war on Iraq.

    Here is the text:

    Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:
    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
    a. Crimes against peace:
    i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any
    of the acts mentioned under (i).

    Also the use of depleted uranium in combat is also a violation of international law ( my depleted uranium thread goes into this in more detail)

    As far as WJC impeachment- IMO they should have impeached him for using depleted uranium , not lying about a blow job.

    But at that time the rightwingers were interested in attacking on the basis of "family values" so .....
    Last edited by Weekend Reports; 07-03-2005 at 09:28 PM.

  5. #30
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    A defendent has no power to deny due process or any rights at all. In this case Clinton was not an officer of the court. What you have described is two completely separate trials - one is dealing with whether or not WJC lied about a consensual blowjob, and the other with whether or not he sexually harassed someone.
    You don't understand the law at play, here.

    WJC was testifying about his sexual history in Paula Jones' sexual harrassment trial. His lying under oath prevented her from achieving justice via the court process. This is where testimony regarding Lewinsky is relevant. They're inextricably intertwined, Jenny, in the eyes of the law.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  6. #31
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Article VI of the US Constitution states that:

    "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;"

    Because Bush violated International Laws that we agreed to by treaty, then he is also violating the supreme" Law of the Land" which is an impeachable offense. Note that it says "or which shall be made" so treaties signed after the Constitution was adopted are still covered.

    Now lets consider the information that has become public through the Downing Street Memos which prove that Bush "fixed" intelligence to support his desire for declaring war on Iraq. And lets remember that he did not deny the Downing Street Memos- so basicaly he admits he lied about WMD.

    In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment. They stated:

    'Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.'

    The subject of impeachment was debated by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional conventions. The Federalist Papers give rationale for many parts of the Constitution and are often used to interpret the intent of the framers.

    In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:

    "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself"

    James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional convention, argued that the President:

    "Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into meansures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,"

    The general message from interpreters of the Constitution is that impeachable offenses are not limited to specific violation of criminal statutes. The contitution was intentionally vague on this point to allow flexibility in prosecuting a president. Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:

    "Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law."
    Last edited by Weekend Reports; 07-03-2005 at 09:52 PM.

  7. #32
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    You don't understand the law at play, here.

    WJC was testifying about his sexual history in Paula Jones' sexual harrassment trial. His lying under oath prevented her from achieving justice via the court process. This is where testimony regarding Lewinsky is relevant. They're inextricably intertwined, Jenny, in the eyes of the law.
    No, I understood. You're just wrong. Someone not being found guilty does not necessarily mean someone else was denied "due process." Even if they clearly were guilty. Due process is... (I've lost a word here) ENACTED by officers of the court, not the defendent. I'm not saying it was okay to lie, and I see the connection between the cases. However that doesn't make them the same case, and they still have to be tried and evaluated separately.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  8. #33
    God/dess Gynger's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Q. What is impeachment?
    A. It is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office.

    Q. Who are these officials?
    A. Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These "civil officers" include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include Senators and Representatives, (the Senate and House deal with misconduct by their own members).

    Q. What is the role of the House of Representatives in impeachment under the Constitution?
    A. Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against an official.

    Q. What is the Senate's role under the Constitution?
    A. Once impeached, high officials are tried by the Senate. Article 1, Section 3, specifies, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

    Q. What punishment does the Constitution prescribe if the official is convicted?
    A. Article 1, Section 3, also specifies, "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

    Q. What else does the Constitution say about impeachment?
    A. Article 2, Section 2, gives the President the "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Article 3, Section 2, says, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment; shall be by jury..."

    Q. How many impeachment proceedings have there been in our history? How many involved a president?
    A. The serious nature of impeachment is reflected in the fact that the House of Representatives has only moved seriously to impeach 18 officials in the more than 200 years since the Constitution was ratified, including two presidents, one cabinet member, one senator, and 13 judges. (The trial of the senator in 1797 resulted in the judgment that a United States Senator is not subject to impeachment.) Only seven of these officers were convicted by the Senate. A president has never been removed from office through the impeachment process. Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868, was not convicted by the Senate (by a margin of one vote) and Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted on the articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee.


    Q. What are the grounds for impeachment?
    A. As noted above, the Constitution specifies that high government officials may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What precisely constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, however, uncertain because the courts have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other constitutional clauses. Treason and bribery are very serious offenses against the state, and most experts agree that offenses encompassed within "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similarly serious. ("Misdemeanors" is a constitutional term that does not have the current meaning of an offense less serious than a felony.)

    There is historical precedent dealing with impeachable conduct. For example, in 1974 the House Judiciary Committee rejected articles of impeachment against President Nixon for the secret bombings in Cambodia, which were viewed as being within executive prerogative as commander in chief, and for personal income tax irregularities, which were viewed as too personal to warrant impeachment. (The articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee related to criminal actions during the cover-up of the Watergate break-in; as noted above, Nixon resigned before the full House voted on the articles).


    Q. What is the basic impeachment process?
    A. The basic impeachment process is spelled out in the Constitution. In essence, the House of Representatives functions something like a grand jury, in that it weighs the evidence and determines whether it is sufficient to justify articles of impeachment (similar to an indictment) and a trial to determine whether the charged official is guilty or not guilty. This trial is held in the Senate, with the Senators serving as jurors. The basic process, then, is in broad outline similar to the process for bringing criminal charges against an individual through the judicial system. If impeachment proceedings are brought against the President, the Chief Justice presides, adding a "judicial" aspect.

    However, principal actors in the process are not ordinary citizens acting as grand jurors and trial jurors, but rather political figures--elected officials who serve by virtue of their position, and not because they have been selected by the courts to serve in judgment. That inevitably introduces a "political" element not directly present in judicial trials.

    Q. How is impeachment different from the criminal and civil processes?
    A. The criminal process involves personal misconduct and imposes penalties to vindicate the interests of society. The civil process involves personal fault and imposes liability to compensate individual victims.

    The impeachment process is different from either of these. While it has elements of the criminal process, it is also a "political" process in that it is designed to deal with misconduct by high public officers.
    In keeping with this purpose, the process and remedy are also "political." Our elected representatives in Congress sit in judgment, and, if convicted, the offender is removed from office and not permitted to hold office again.

    Q. What procedures does the House of Representatives follow in the impeachment process?
    A. While the Constitution outlines the basic process for impeachment, the specific procedures are determined by the internal rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate. To begin, the House of Representatives refers the investigation to its Judiciary Committee, which reviews the evidence and may conduct hearings. It determines whether an official impeachment inquiry is warranted and, if so, asks the House for permission to proceed. An official investigation follows, with the Committee deciding whether to offer articles of impeachment to the full House. The House then votes separately on each of the articles, with a simple majority needed to impeach the official. Articles of impeachment approved by the House are then presented to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate for trial.

    Moreover, the process contemplates that due process is afforded to the officer who is subject to impeachment. Charges must be considered and made, a trial must be conducted, and appropriate proof of sufficient misconduct shown.

    Q. Once an official is impeached by the House of Representatives, what procedures does the Senate follow in the impeachment trial?
    A. The U.S. Constitution specifies that the Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments." Beyond what the Constitution specifies regarding impeachment trials, the Senate has established certain rules of procedure for these trials. In the event of an impeachment trial, the full Senate sits as a jury--with the Chief Justice of the United States (William H. Rehnquist) presiding over the proceeding in cases of presidential impeachment. Designated members of the House, referred to as "managers," would prosecute the case by "exhibiting" the articles of impeachment. The Senate has powers to carry out its constitutional authority to try impeachments (issuing writs, mandates, contempt citations, etc.).

    The Presiding Officer makes initial rulings on motions and objections, but these judgments may be reviewed by the Senate and reversed by a simple majority. In this sense, Senators also can function as judges in the proceeding. Under current rules, witnesses are subject to examination and cross-examination by the parties (represented by the prosecuting "managers" and the impeached official's attorneys). Senators may not speak during the trial. They may submit questions for witnesses to the Presiding Officer, but must do so in writing. After hearing the evidence, the Senators meet in closed session, as a jury in a courtroom would, to discuss the verdict. They then meet in open session to vote for either conviction or acquittal on each article: "The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; thereafter each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in his place and answer: guilty or not guilty" (from Rules and Manual of the Senate, revised 1986).

    Conviction requires the vote of two-thirds of the members present, or 67 Senators if all 100 members (2 for each of the 50 states) are present. If convicted on any one article of impeachment, the official is immediately removed from office. If it chooses, the Senate may also vote to disqualify a convicted official from further service in any federal office. This additional step requires only a simple majority of those present.


    [/URL]
    [/URL]



  9. #34
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    If there is one thing I learned from the Clinton years its that lying is not an impeachable offense.

    Clinton Lied
    Hillary Cried
    Bush Lied
    Thousands DIED


    Quite a difference there. Which one approaches "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

    If you can't tell the difference, I SURE hope you are not in the Senate where an impeachment is tried.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  10. #35
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Just how many Americans want Bush Impeached ?

    Let's look at this presidential lying situation from another angle. It is important because not all lying can be a high crime or misdemeanor.

    You are the president and on national tv press conference. Some reporter asks you if, when you were in a meeting earler, if it was you who FARTED. You say, no, but do not complain about the stupidity and impertinence of the question. You hope such an embarassment will go away easier by ignoring it than by rubbing the reporter's nose in it. An inquisitive person who was in the room of the earlier meeting goes back there and determines the ph7sical positions of the president and others closest to him and also determines the ventilation pattern (which way the smell travelled). It has been reported by several people that such a smell existed just at the reported time. This investigator uses forensic techniques to prove that the president in deed must have farted. Further it is determined by conversations with involved people that he has farted in several previous meetings as well. The president for some weeks continues to lie about his purported fart. Eventually he gives in and asks for understanding and forgiveness.

    Well, that whole thing triggers some enemies in the House of Representatives (of the opposite party) who conspire together to attempt an impeachment hearing. Members of his own party largely say the fart maybe was forguiiveable but the lying wasn't, so they consider abandoning him. As a result the president is mostly disabled from completing his job competently for the rest of his term of office.

    I know a fart just involves one person (except those who smell it) and a blow job involves two. But that is the basic difference here in the actual event and the lie I have presented here and the events surrounding the blow job (and maybe some touching) lie.
    Last edited by threlayer; 07-07-2005 at 08:11 PM. Reason: typos, added content
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. N. Americans and alcohol
    By LuckiCharm in forum Body Business
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 09:32 AM
  2. oh, so this is why americans are so fat.
    By Corgan in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 11:08 AM
  3. are there no smart americans?!
    By mermaidnz in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-22-2007, 12:46 PM
  4. Bush company 3 or Great Alaskan Bush in Phoenix
    By honeygirl in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2005, 05:38 PM
  5. Your Fellow Americans
    By MojoJojo in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 07:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •