Question to Senator Feingold: Why Is Impeachment Radical?

[berni_mccoy]

If, as you say, Bush broke the law and needs to be held accountable, why NOT IMPEACH? From wikipedia:

Censure is a congressional procedure for reprimanding the President of the United States or a member of Congress for inappropriate behaviour

But you aren't talking about inappropriate behavior. You are talking about breaking the law.

If you do not want to initiate impeachment because it will never be allowed by the republican congress, then why bother censuring? If censuring is an appropriate level of "accountability" here, then by censuring bush (even if it passes), will become a passive allowance of what Bush did as "inappropriate." I'm not willing to go there. I want IMPEACHMENT for bush's HIGH CRIMES. I don't think that is so radical on principle, though I will admit it would likely never pass given the "moderate" republicans who caved in on the NSA wiretapping investigation.

[TayTay]

1. Impeachment, by Constitutional law, begins in the House

Russ Feingold is a Senator. It's not his job to begin the impeachment inquiry, it's the job of a House member.

[berni_mccoy]

3. It's also not his job to Censure either...

Censure has no basis in the Constitution.

[MADem]

13. There is precedent for censure going back to Andrew Jackson

Whigs held a majority in the Senate. They rejected Jackson's nominees for government directors of the Bank of the United States, rejected Taney as secretary of the treasury, and in March 1834, adopted a resolution of censure against Jackson himself for assuming "authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." Jackson protested the censure, arguing that the Senate had adopted the moral equivalent of an impeachment conviction without formal charges, without a trial, and without the necessary two-thirds vote. Led by Thomas Hart Benton, Jackson's defenders mounted a crusade to expunge the censure from the Senate journal. They succeeded in 1837, at the end of Jackson's presidency, after Democrats finally won majority control of the Senate.
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/andrewjackson/biography/DomesticAffairs.common.shtml

If Feingold could mount a successful censure campaign with a GOP Congress, it would be not quite a miracle, but an amazing feat. Censure is "impeachment lite." The GOP would still hold on to all branches of government, but would be bloodied. They'd still hold on to all three branches if impeachment took place, but they'd be completely crippled and on the way out.

[blm]

2. Senate doesn't handle impeachment - they JUDGE impeachment after the fact.

Feingold's censure is fine, but it shouldn't be offered as an alternative to "radical" idea of impeachment by the DEms in congress.

As it stands now, I'm FOR Feingold's censure, but not as an alternative to impeachment process.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Censure has NO basis in the Constitution

So what. Why is impeachment radical?

[blm]

11. Impeachment isn't radical to me. I think censure is offered to compromise

when you think congress is going too far with impeachment.

That's why I am all for censure of Bush, but NOT as an alternative when impeachment case hasn't even been presented yet.

[alarcojon]

5. It would be a tremendous political victory against Bush

although entirely symbolic. However, if you could get a censure through, the road to impeachment begins to get paved....

[berni_mccoy]

6. I don't agree that censure paves the way... it CLOSES the door

on the issue. Why is impeachment radical?

[alarcojon]

8. I didn't say it was

Maybe Feingold sees censure as a trial balloon. Why does it close the door?

[berni_mccoy]

9. Because IF impeachment is proposed AFTER a successful censure

The republicans will unite on the fact that the issue has been dealt with.

Impeachment will NEVER go through if Censure is successful. And if Censure fails, there's no point in going for impeachment.

[alarcojon]

14. If censure fails

it will be because the Repugs go on the record stating they find nothing wrong with what Bush is doing. It weakens them. Agreed?

[bpilgrim]

7. Impeachment is RADICAL no matter who is the president, that is a fact and

russ said this is a FIRST STEP... NOT the end-all-be-all.

don't buy into the M$M spin.

peace

[berni_mccoy]

10. It's only radical if the President DOESN'T break the law

But if the president DOES break the law, it's part of the Constitutional Process.

Though I will admit, I may have let my gaurd down on the reporting of this statement by the M$M...

[bpilgrim]

12. removing a sitting president is a RADICAL course of action.

this is a radical admin and clearly deserves to be impeached but it will not be easy considering the massive propaganda weTHEpeople are subjected to daily AND the fact that the reTHUGs control the hill.

we need to do this step-by-step to carefully break through the M$M BS.

anyways...

please read what russ what this morning on KOS...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/13/114144/941


peace

[mdmc]

15. well, imo, the PATRIOT act broke the law

I am against impeachment because the voters chose Bush, and he should be able to serve. I am down with a censure.