Let's Get This Straight --The House Has A DUTY TO IMPEACH Bush, It's NOT A CHOICE....

[Blackhatjack]

Just like a law enforcement officer has a DUTY TO ARREST an individual who commits a crime in his presence, the Members of the HOUSE HAVE A DUTY TO IMPEACH BUSH for crimes that he has committed for which they have evidence proving same.

IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

To shirk their duty to IMPEACH is a violation of their oath of office to defend the US Constitution and the laws of this country.

IF they impeach Bush and there are not enough votes in the Senate cast to remove him from office, so be it. That does not change their obligation to initiate and impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.

IT is clear where duty lies, and it does not lie in a determination that the Senate may not be successful in removing Bush from office.

[IdaBriggs]

1. Kicked. Nominated. Agreed. nt

[cali]

2. Aaargh. They don't have a legal obligation to impeach.

It's just not there. I do think they have a moral obligation- but that's another thing altogether.

[merh]

4. please explain

thank you

[cali]

9. Sure. There is no affirmative duty, under the Constitution

for the House to impeach. It is left entirely to their discretion.

[tekisui]

22. They swore to uphold the Constitution.

And the Constitution has been violated by the Commander in Thief.

The Constitution that they swore to uphold explicitly states that Congress has the Sole Power to Impeach. The Constitution provides the cure to the violations that they swore to protect. Their Oath does require them to protect and defend it, and the method is Impeachment.

Clearly, they do have an obligation and should be Impeached, and/or removed from office as well.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. How does

having the discretion equal having the obligation? That's silly.

[tekisui]

44. They swore to uphold

the document being violated. They are failing their Oath by not protecting it. The protection against the violations is Impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Where

is there an obligation to impeach?

You're arguing that they SHOULD impeach, but where is the legal obligation?

And personally, I think impeaching when it's bound to fail to succeed would be dumb.

[tekisui]

57. The obligation is clear.

They swore to protect the COTUS.
The COTUS has been/is being violated.
They are obliged to defend it.
If they don't, they are violating their Oath and the COTUS.

If serious Impeachment were pursued, and just some of the violations were laid out for everyone to see, done right, should not fail.

I think that they have all been too participatory, or at least too negligent in the violations of the COTUS to stand up and act enraged now.

[cali]

59. Honestly, I don't think you'll find too many, if any, Constitutional

experts who'll agree with you. I know there's one Constitutional lawyer who posts here, and he certainly doesn't.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

76. Bruce Fein is one...

He has said it over and over (most recently on Bill Moyers)

and this...
http://www.mhpbooks.com/aoi.html written by 3 constitutional experts

and Norman Ornstein and John Dean and Chris Pyle and Jonathan Turley
http://www.co.miami.oh.us/A55969/spbx.nsf/8178b1c14b1e9b6b8525624f0062fe9f/f54ff7083fea902c862570ef000b9c31!OpenDocument

[MonkeyFunk]

85. and they all argue that the House has a moral obligation

to impeach. Not a legal one.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

87. from the first link...

In ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH, Michael Ratner, Bill Goodman and other experts at one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, set out the legal arguments for impeachment in a clear, concise, and objective discussion.

and the second...
"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the
heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already
conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at
least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes
and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

[cali]

101. Turley is saying that what bushco has done

meets the requirements. He is not, as far as I can see, arguing that the House is legally obligated to initiate them.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

143. Their oath to protect the Constituion REQUIRES them to!

we're quibbling about semantics. You are correct in saying that the Constitution does not 'require' impeachment, HOWEVER, the Oath of Office DOES require that they protect the Constitution. So we throw out the Oath? Is that what you are saying?

[cali]

149. No. I'm saying that their oath isn't a requirement to impeach either

It can be argued that don't see impeachment as protecting the constitution. I know for a fact that bernie sanders, that well known enabler and bush apologist doesn't think he's violating his oath of office by not supporting impeachment.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

161. I love Bernie to death, but

since he works for me, I can disagree with him. :P

[tekisui]

182. Please tell me, then, what exactly are Mr. Sanders,

whom I respect, and others in the Congress doing to protect the Constitution? As I see it, the Constitution has been ignored, violated and ripped to shreads. What are they doing to uphold and defend it, as called for by their Oath?

You say Impeachment isn't required of them, what other remedies are they taking? What is their legal obligation in defending the Constitution?

Show me the avenues that exist, other than Impeachment.

[defendandprotect]

231. Bernie may not see the threat to the Constitution -- not to mention our Treasury ....

and the stability of the nation -- as clearly as some others see it --

This has parallels with the flag vs the Constitution/BOR arguement . ..
People who want to protect the flag are often destroying the Bill of Rights -- !!!
One is a mere symbol of the other ---

The oath is to protect the Constitution/BOR . . .
if one sees a THREAT, then there is an obligation to "defend."

The highest tool of response is IMPEACHMENT --

Obviously, many of us see not only a THREAT .... but many serious threats to our Constitution/BOR, demanding impeachment.

[defendandprotect]

220. That depends on whether you see the OATH they take as "moral" or legal -- ????

I see it as both ---

[Virginia Dare]

232. That's the excuse the repubs used to impeach Clinton...n/t

[merh]

147. You provide me with the language from the "constitutional" scholars

that back up your position.

Let's start there, shall we.

[bagrman]

184. Heres your experts.

In ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH, Michael Ratner, Bill Goodman and other experts at one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, set out the legal arguments for impeachment in a clear, concise, and objective discussion. In four separate articles of impeachment detailing four separate charges –warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers – it is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.


Latr

[MonkeyFunk]

61. first of al

anybody who uses "COTUS" deserves to be punched in the nads. It's just ridiculous.

Second, there's no obligation whatsoever to impeach in the SCROTUM. The idea that there is is just idiotic.

I want Bush impeached. I want him removed. I wanted it 6 years ago. But to say the Dems are obligated to do it is pure bullshit.

[Usrename]

95. So, in your opinion, the oath that they swore is legally meaningless.

You are seriously arguing that they are under no legal obligation to abide by their oath of office.

That is new.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

155. better start kickin...

It is a recognized Acronym, no matter how silly it sounds.

COTUS - What does COTUS stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by ...
What does COTUS stand for? Definition of COTUS in the list of acronyms and abbreviations provided by the Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus.
acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/COTUS - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

The Constitution of the United States
The Eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State ...
www.constitution.org/usconsti.htm - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

[tekisui]

183. Thanks, Viva, I feel like I've taken crazy pills.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

187. I think they dosed the water or something...

lol!

[kenfrequed]

169. It is not an argument I would attempt to make

I agree with the sentiment 100%.

I think he should be impeached and I think they should begin Impeachment investigations and call them that. Immediately.

As to whether they are bound to do so it gets a bit hazy. I am suspicious of anyone saying they are legally bound to do so (though I am also suspicious of anyone automatically refuting that statement). I think they are neglecting their duties as a congress in not pursuing this, but that is a personal opinion and there really isn't a legal basis to compel them to impeach.

I call my congress almost weekly telling them to get down to it and impeach the bastards.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

158. Ok, ok, let's forget about impeachment. What about accountability?

Impeach doesn’t mean anything anyway, it‘s a slap on the wrist.

We have the wife of an impeached president who will more than likely be crowned president next year. ...So let’s get beyond impeachment. These guys should at least be doing time.

[followthemoney]

265. Yeah, that's like saying a cop has to arrest a guy if he sees him in the act of

robbing a bank.

No way does a cop have to do that. What if the guy robbing the bank is a friend of his? That's silly.:sarcasm:

[Blackhatjack]

26. The 'in their discretion' theory does not hold water. Here is why...

IF the President of the United States handed over the security codes for launching our nuclear weapons to China that would amount to treason(which is encompassed in the designation 'high crimes and misdemeanors') and the House Members as Constitutional Officials would have the DUTY to impeach the President, it would not be a 'discretionary choice' whether to initiate Impeachment proceedings or not.

That is where the oath of office comes in.

You can violate your oath of office by failing to act when you are compelled to do so in order to defend the Constitution and our Laws.

[merh]

30. exactly

n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

31. Nope

it might be treason (if we were at war with China) and it would certainly be a high crime or misdemeanor. But still, the constitution wouldn't obligate the House to impeach.

It's purely discretionary, and purely political.

[merh]

38. It it not purely political

Purely political would be censure, to make a public "political" comment on the failures or misdeeds.

Impeachment proceedings are legal proceedings, established by the constitution to "rein in any officeholder who 'dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people.'" As impeachment proceedings can result in the punishment of "removal from office" they are civil proceedings which can result in said punishment and they are not criminal as the punishment does not allow for imprisonment and loss of vested rights.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. You're wrong

impeachment proceedings are not legal proceedings - that would be judicial.

It's entirely political.

There's no obligation on the House to impeach.

[merh]

52. Go read some more

educate yourself.

Articles of Impeachment are like an indictment - they are the charges brought against the office holder. After that, the Senate conducts the trial with the Chief Justice overseeing the legal proceeding.

As the constitution is the supreme law of the land and as it establishes impeachment as a means to remove officials from office, impeachment is a legal proceeding.

Think in terms of the DA who fails to ask the grand jury to return an indictment when he knows the law has been violated. His refusal is a violation of his oath of office to uphold the laws.

The House is obligated to impeach because they are the only ones who can do so and their oaths of office are to protect and defend the constitution. To not impeach when an office holder violates the laws or his oath of office would be a violation of the house's oath of office.

.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. show me the simple text

that says impeachment is an obligation?

I'll save you the time- you can't.

[merh]

62. The house members oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. And where's the word "impeachment" in that?

Sorry, I've argued with you before and you're uninformed about many issues.

Taking an oath to defend the constitution does not mean the House is obligated to impeach, since the constitution itself does not obligate impeachment.

[merh]

67. It is you that is woefully uninformed and so out of your element it is laughable.

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

69. I'm happy to provide you with a giggle

Now how about responding to what I said?

Where in the constitution is impeachment an obligation?

[merh]

75. Your giggles mean as much to me

as do your "ain't gonna happen, not never ever" threads.

It is you that does not know how to read the constitution or rather, who does not understand what you read.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. You're cute

now show me where in the constitution impeachment is an obligation. That is, after all, the point of this discussion.

[merh]

126. I have shown you - it is in the job description and duties

and when one takes the job, if they are the only one with the authority to act on the situation and fail, then they have violated their obligated duty under the constitution and their oath to uphold it.

How beastly of you to continue to deny what has been provided to you on several occasions. If you don't understand it, that's one thing, but to deny that the answer has not be given is a falsehood, but you that is not new.

By the way, the discussion began with your blatant mischaracterization of impeachment. You claimed it was purely political and I accurately countered that it is a legal process. You think of it only as a 1 step process but it is more than that, it is two steps. If the House begins impeachment proceedings by approving the articles of impeachment and the Senate does not conduct the trial, are they in violation of their duty? Have they refused to do what the constitution obligates them to do?

You need to stick to computers and CADs and such.

[davekriss]

122. It does obligate Congress to defend the Constitution...

...against all enemies, and impeachment is one of the tools Congress has to do so. So if Bush is blatantly violating his own oath of office, what do you think the remedy is and what obligation do you think falls on Congress to find it?

[reichstag911]

172. Hey, Monkey Spunk...er...Funk,...

...perhaps your powers of logical deduction are deficient, but if one follows the path from Bush Administration crimes against the COTUS (you don't like it, kiss my a**) to the Congressional oath of office to affirmatively "protect and defend the Constitution" to the mechanism by which they are empowered to do that, impeachment, one winds up with an affirmative obligation to impeach. Or are you claiming that because no form of the word "obligation" appears along with the description of the power of impeachment, no actual obligation exists?

[kenfrequed]

173. Ye gods

Seriously.

You believe Impeachment is "purely political"?

Would you like the opportunity to edit that comment?

While I am uncertain as to a legal enforcement compelling congress to impeach, I think you are completely misreading impeachment based upon the attempt by the Republican congress to go after Clinton. I think your comments come across as being entirely cynical and intellectually dishonest.

I also think you may need to take a look at the constitutional basis for Impeachment and recognize it for the tool that it is: a programed check on executive overreach.

[kisserofsinners]

235. Then, really, what's the point

of checks and balances if you aren't obligated to use them? The founding fathers put checks and balances into the system just for the purposes of protecting us from this shit right here!!!! What the congress isn't doing is just as disgraceful as what the Bushco is doing.

[fooj]

266. What a crock of shit.

:smoke:

[cali]

32. No they wouldn't. Again, they'd have the moral duty to do

something (and do it damn fast) but nothing in the Constitution speaks to they're HAVING to impeach- under any circumstance. It is always discretionary.

[BigBearJohn]

93. So, are you saying their duty to defend the Constitution is discretionary?

If it is discretionary, then why bother taking the oath in the first place?

[Usrename]

96. Yeah, you are right. The framers were idiots. You are so smart to notice.

When they wrote:

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.


and what they meant to say was:

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, if the Congress finds it convenient, and if it is not convenient then the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be allowed to remain in Office and not suffer any consequences for commiting Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

They sure were a bunch of dumbasses to leave that last part out about not having any duty to stop anyone from committing Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What were they thinking?

Idiocy has reached new heights.

[cali]

99. So Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold

Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, and dozens, and dozens of other liberal and progressive lawmakers, many of them attorneys, are all idiots?

Things that make you go hmmm.

Your rewrite of the Constitution isn't even worth commenting on.

[tekisui]

102. Not idiots, enablers.

And Conyers is the only one who sits on the House committee to bring it up.
I see Conyers and Pelosi as WEAK, not stupid. They know what they should be doing, they know how to do it. They are scared.

Not Impeaching a Criminal President because they are scared of the political consequences is no different than Impeaching for political gain.

And I believe they are obliged because they are the ONLY ones with the Power to right these wrongs.

[cali]

104. I believe they have a moral obligation to impeach

even if the results are disasterous for the country and the proceedings, in essence, publically vindicate bushco. But that's taking quite the chance.

As for Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold, being an enabler, that's simply laughable. I mean, whose judgement should I put more stock in, a fellow anonymous poster or Bernie Sanders?

[tekisui]

105. I don't think Fiengold and Sanders are enablers.

I think Conyers and Pelosi are.

nice edit, I saw it. I'm no warrior, but thanks.
:hi:

[JuniperLea]

148. If you want to believe a government who has lied to you over and over...

Be my guest.

[Usrename]

108. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

"Your rewrite of the Constitution isn't even worth commenting on."

:rofl:

Of course not!!!

:rofl:

Change the subject!!!

:rofl:

Run!!!

:rofl:

Hide!!!

:rofl:

You're too much sometimes, cali!!!

:rofl:

[cali]

109. I didn't change the subject, but good try and all the cute little

smilies and weak snark really make your argument so effective!

You want anyone to comment on crap you pulled out of your, um, well darker regions?

Run? Hide?

Hardly.

Here I am.

Now how about all those folks like Sanders, Feingold, Kennedy etc, who think people like you, have their heads up those dark regions?

[Usrename]

130. It's YOUR crap! Out of YOUR ass! I just regurgitated YOUR argument!

Where did I err?

Nice try, as if I'll let you put YOUR crap on me?

Where am I wrong there, with MY rewriting of the Constitution to incorporate YOUR argument?

Your argument looks rather silly in writing, doesn't it?

It's because your argument is a joke, and that has nothing to do with the transcription. It's YOUR argument.

Not worthy of a response!

Bwahahahahahhaahahaaa..

[davekriss]

125. That "shall be removed" settles the argument

Congress is legally obligated to impeach.

[cali]

127. The "shall" relates solely to the consquence of impeachment

and conviction, not to the act of initiating impeachment.

[davekriss]

134. OK, I see that (nt)

[merh]

29. But

if they took an oath to uphold the constitution and they know of constitutional violations and do not act to stop them, aren't they violating their oaths? Wasn't impeachment included in the constitution just for that purpose?

New York Times discusses impeachment as it is written in the Constitution and what the founding fathers intended with this important check and balance, notably that the target of impeachment can be any Federal officer and not just the President. US Citizens, through their elected Representative, are the only body that can initiate impeachment. Article 1 states “The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

The Constitution provides for impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Not a clear formula, but it wasn’t meant to be. Impeachment, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, cannot be “tied down” by “strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense” by the House, or “in the construction of it” by the Senate.

The founders did not want impeachment to be undertaken so casually that, in James Madison’s words, the president and other officers effectively served at the “pleasure of the Senate.” But they also did not want to limit it to a few specific offenses. The phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to give Congress leeway.

Impeachment was one of the important checks and balances the founders built into the Constitution. At state ratification conventions, it was promoted as a tool for Congress to rein in any officeholder who “dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people.”

So if they don't use the power provided to them under the constitution they are in effect violating their oaths of office to uphold the constitution.

The term "shall" is directive. The term "may" is discretionary.

.

[cali]

36. The 'shall' refers to removal after impeachment and conviction

and has nothing to do with initiating impeachment. Again, I think they have a moral duty, but they don't have a Constitutional one.

[merh]

45. But they took an oath to uphold the constitution.

They are bound to use their offices and the powers vested in them to do just that.

As they are the only body that can impeach their failure to do so when abuses of office occur is a violation of the constitution and their oaths.

It is more than a moral obligation, it is a legal duty.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. How silly

the notion that impeaching is a legal duty. It's no such thing, and an intelligent reading of the text will show that.

[merh]

55. LOL, go snark at someone else.

You might be a beastly expert of computers, but it is apparent you do not understand the law and the constitution.

It is you that is silly.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. That's funny

because I can read a simple sentence in English and interpret it correctly, I don't understand the constitution?

You're just wrong. Blatantly, sadly, embarrassingly wrong. The constitution does not oblige the House to impeach. If you think it does, that's sorta sad.

[merh]

64. Is the Constitution the Supreme law of the land?

Does the constitution provide for impeachment?

Thus it is a legal avenue available to the House to carry out their duties to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;" To not impeach when crimes have been committed is to violate their oaths, thus they are legally bound by their oaths of office to act.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Yes the constitution is the supreme law of the land

No, it does not obligate impeachment.

how silly!

[merh]

68. Their oaths of office do obligate

.

[MonkeyFunk]

70. Simple steps:

They take an oath to defend the constitution.

Nowhere does the constitution compel or obligate them to impeach

QED: you're misinformed

[Usrename]

97. This idiocy is the most bizzarre argument I've heard yet.

Do you really think that the Congress has the discretion to place the president above the law?

Is that what you really think? You are really sounding completely insane now. You are talking gibberish.

Where is this clause which informs the Congress that they have no duty to defend against treason? That it's all discretionary?

[MonkeyFunk]

152. My argument is a very simple one

the language of the constitution does not obligate the House to impeach. Anything else you read into that is of your own design.

[pacalo]

123. They have a DUTY to uphold the Constitution, which the boy king has flagrantly ignored.

What's so difficult about comprehending that?

[onenote]

242. And how is the supposed "duty" supposed to be enforced?

Who has the power under the constitution to order the house to impeach? To tell individual members how to vote? Remember, the Constitution states that the House shall have the "sole power" of impeachment. So exactly who gets to override and order them to exercise this power even if they choose not to?

This isn't a hard question. The Supreme Court has addressed it. And this is what they've said:

See Nixon v. US, 506 US 224 (1993):

"Petitioner devotes only two pages in his brief to negating the significance of the word "sole" in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that "he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." We think that the word "sole" is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word "sole" appears only one other time in the Constitution--with respect to the House of Representatives' %sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, §2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The common sense meaning of the word "sole" is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. "Sole" is defined as "having no companion," "solitary," "being the only one," and "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body "tried" an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference." (snip)

"The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment provisions support our reading of the constitutional language. The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers. See 290 U. S. App. D.C., at 424, 938 F. 2d, at 243; R. Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 116 (1973). This silence is quite meaningful in light of the several explicit references to the availability of judicial review as a check on the Legislature's power with respect to bills of attainder, ex post-facto laws, and statutes.

[cali]

56. That would be nice

but it's simply not true. And wishful thinking won't make it so.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

79. yep, and here's some more back up for ya...

Indeed, in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses 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 society itself."

And, in The Federalist Papers (No. 70), Hamilton further explained: "Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment."

In short, one of the aims of the constitution was to ensure that virtuous men would become the nation's leaders, and impeachment was merely the remedy for those public servants whose misconduct resulted in betrayal of the public trust:

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5 charges, "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment ." In 1843, Whig President John Tyler (U.S. President, 1840-1844) who had become disaffected from within his own party had a motion of impeachment against him defeated by the full House of Representa-tives by a vote of 127 to 83.

Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6 and 7, predicate, "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.

"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."


http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor4.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

144. It appears the connection between the two is too difficult for some to comprehend.

It's very sad. :(

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. Fine, let's go with the oath of office they took...

The true question, the only question, must be whether it is the duty of members of Congress pursuant to their oaths of office to protect the public from alleged encroachments on their constitutional rights by commencing the process to determine the validity of the allegations.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27536

[Blackhatjack]

20. Sure it is there. The oath taken to defend the Constitution and Laws of this Country create a DUTY

... it is more than a moral obligation.

[Syntheto]

250. While there has been some personal attacks...

Against those of us who were slapping our foreheads in frustration at what we considered an ill-advised remark by Rep. Stark with regards to the whole Bush amused by soldiers getting their heads blown off thing, maybe it's part of a bigger strategy to lay the groundwork for impeachment, by putting it into the moral sphere, with Stark providing the symbol of the One Lone Brave Voice, calling out in the Wilderness, and then having the rest of the team stand up to be counted. It could work, if it's done right.

I certainly hope that's where this is going, because if they leave Stark out there to hang by himself, they're going to lose the synergy of focus dovetailing the two concepts: Calling out some callous ninny who shames the Office of President, with the righteous demand that okay, the time has come to remove this cancer from the body politic and furthermore, we, the Democratic Congress have been remiss up until Rep. Stark reminded us with his brave act.

Right now, if I was on the strategy committee, I would say that it's time to immediately get the D team together with a united front and put impeachment on the table.

Let's go D-Team, don't let this opportunity get away!

[superkia]

3. If that is true, how come Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate...

that is speaking about impeachment? Wouldn't all of our candidates want the law upheld or do the other candidates have an agenda that doesn't concern what is right and good for the people? When you only see the "unelectable" candidate speaking out for the people he is supposed to represent, something is wrong with us if we look at him as a bad thing. I want someone that represents me, I want to believe that the people do matter again.

[Lilith Velkor]

5. No, it is a choice

It just happens to be the right choice.

[Rhythm and Blue]

6. No, they don't. Please do not post quasi-legal gibberish.

There is absolutely no duty to impeach on suspicion of wrongdoing implied anywhere in the Constitution.

Edit: The name column to the right forms a pleasing hourglass pattern. I hope nobody replies to anything above; that would break it.

[Maraya1969]

13. Well the Constitution does not say "may" It says "shall"

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

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.

[Laurier]

24. You're reading that wrong.

It says that those specific office holders "shall" be removed only after impeachment for and conviction of specific crimes. So far, we haven't even managed to get impeachment on the table (which would be a good start), never mind the fact that none of the repugs have been charged with any of the required offences to trigger the section (treason, bribery, etc.), and never mind that the section requires convictions on those as-yet non-existent charges before the "shall" you quoted ever comes into play.

[RB TexLa]

25. if impeached they "shall" be removed.

It says they are removed from office if they are impeached and convicted. The shall applies to their removal upon conviction, not the process itself.

[Laurier]

34. Yes, both "impeachment" and "conviction" are prerequisites to the "shall" in that section.

Nothing in that section imposes a positive obligation upon anyone to move for impeachment, contrary to what Maraya seems to be suggesting above.

And even if there was a move to impeach, without a conviction for at least one of the enumerated offences, the "shall" still wouldn't come into play.

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. high Crimes and Misdemeanors. BOTH Cheny and the psycho have committed them.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
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.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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 Punishmnet, according to Law.



If lying about war, illegally outing a CIA agent, illegally invading another sovereign nation, torture and election fraud aren't reason enough to Impeach then why is Impeachment even in the Constitution? It's there for a reason. To remove sociopaths from office.

[Laurier]

37. Perhaps, but until there are both impeachment proceedings and criminal proceedings and conviction

for one or more of the enumerated crimes, the section doesn't come into play.

[tekisui]

41. Article 1 Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas

Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers ans 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.

The Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.


These are a few of the items from the Constitution that the current administration has violated, along with failing their Oath to this document. Each member of Congress swears an Oath to this Constitution as well. They swear to defend and uphold it. If and when it is violated, the remedy is Impeachment. Congress holds th Sole Power to Impeach. They have a duty to Impeach, and the wrongdoing is not suspected or implied, it is documented.

[Rhythm and Blue]

138. No duty to impeach, no.

There simply isn't any. I understand that you strongly desire for there to be one, but nowhere does it say that Congress must impeach if they believe the Constitution is being violated.

[Blackhatjack]

43. There is a difference between 'suspicion of wrongdoing' and 'evidentiary proof of high crimes...'

The concept of impeachment that was eventually included in the Constitution ratified by the various states provided the House with leeway to determine what fit the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

However, nothing in the Constitution relieves a House Member of their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Laws of this country. If they have evidentiary proof of the President engaging in conduct that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, then there is a duty to intiate impeachment proceedings.

[Rhythm and Blue]

137. And neither appear in the Constitution,

nor is there any evidence of a duty to initiate impeachment.

[Blackhatjack]

192. The 'right to privacy' is not spelled out in the Constitution but it is included...

If our Constitution included in writing all the provisions it covers it would be hundreds of pages long(which BTW is how long some South American Constitutions are).

You don't like the word 'duty', however the Courts have recognized that where there are obligations inherent in carrying out the responsibilities of holding office those obligatory responsibilities do in fact constitute a 'duty.'

[Rhythm and Blue]

193. That would be because the Supreme Court has recognized it.

Have any courts found an obligation to impeach, or found that any similar wordings constitute an obligation?

[Blackhatjack]

204. You are missing the point here ....

There have been so few cases reviewed by the United States Supreme Court having to do with impeachment and the obligations attendant thereto that we cannot say with certainty what the SCOTUS would say about those obligations, and the 'duties' they create, if any.

Go back and read the OP and you will find that I pointed out the 'duty' of the Members of the House comes from their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of this country.

If you want to argue they have no such 'duty', then you are proposing that elected Members of the House can turn a blind eye to crimes committed against the Constitution and Laws of this country by the President which may be ignored and allowed to continue 'since it is in their discretion.' IF that is the case, there is no need for any kind of sworn oath of office for Members of the House.

If you read the Constitution you will find that where there is power granted by the 'framers' there is also an implicit responsibility to use that power for the highest good and welfare of the nation.

[onenote]

247. the reason there are so few cases involving impeachment

is that the courts regard impeachment issues as non justiciable because the Constitution express commits the power to impeach "solely" to the House and Senate. Even the one limited carve out for the Judiciary to be involved -- the designation of the Chief Justice as presiding officer -- is relatively meaningless since it has long been recognized and codified in the Senate's rules that any ruling made by the CJ in his role as presiding officer in an impeachment trial can be reversed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. WHy? Because the sole power to try impeachments is given to the Senate, so the final word must always be theirs.

The same goes for initiating an impeachment. The sole power to impeach constitutionally resides with the House. No other arm of government can compel the House and its members to take any action with regard to impeachment. End of story.

[Tom Joad]

7. too bad this congress does not understand the word "duty".

you know, in Czechoslovakia there was no "impeachment".
People just shut down the government until it fell.

why do we have to go thru congress?

[MonkeyFunk]

8. wrong

there's no duty to impeach. It's a choice.

And with the votes not there, it's a bad choice right now.

[davekriss]

165. You've spent a lot of energy on this point on this thread

The fact is, this President and this Vice President are more deserving of impeachment than any other President or Vice President that has yet served We the People. Their is a prima facie case that they have abused their office, violated the law, and may even be war criminals. Most of us here see this to be the case. That Congress hasn't passed articles of impeachment at this point appears to us to be a violation of their own oaths of office to defend the Constitution. They see what we see; they have remedy; they refuse to act on that remedy, which is a dereliction of duty. That's how many of us see it. 2008 will prove to be an interesting election.

Your arguments on this thread amount to arguing over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. The questions are distractions and the answer does not matter. What matters is we push our Congress to impeach this President, a necessary first step if we're ever going to get this country back from the neo-fascists who now run it.

[sampsonblk]

227. Wrong

Its an absolute moral duty. If the president is breaking the law in a way that harms the citizens of this nation, only the Congress can intercede. Then they must do it. If they make not attempt, then they are a party to the crimes.

You're right. Its a choice. Either they do their duty or they don't.

This 'don't have the votes' thing is a cover for cowardice. They could at least say publicly that they know crimes have been committed. No votes needed for that. But they won't do that either. Then its just plain old fashioned fear.

[specimenfred1984]

10. Only true if this were not a fascist country

It's been a fascist country since the year 2000 when the elected president Gore was denied office. Now, the purpose of Congress is to collect evidence against republicans so that when we democrats have the majority again we can prosecute all of the criminals.

Here's Pelosi's statement regarding exactly that:

----Speaker Pelosi: Thank you David. The American people really don’t even know the half of it, but we are trying to build the record, and that’s what we have to do. You know, they’ve been going for six – almost seven – six and a half years, with no oversight. Just absolutely zero accountability, no oversight. And when people talk about this Congress, they have to recognize the big distinction between this Congress and previous Congress’ in terms of shining the light of oversight and accountability on this administration. So when people see what is happening in terms of… What we said last year during the campaign – for the whole of 2006 what we said “Corruption, Cronyism and Incompetence”. And that’s some of this unint… Corruption. It’s not just the corruption; this personal aggrandizement that were guilty of, it was the corruption in terms of the governmental process. And they… it’s stunning. It really is stunning. And on many of these things, you have to build a record so that the public sees what it is. And I think that some of our people, Mr. Waxman in particular because he has the committee – The Government Reform and Oversight Committee – has done a spectacular job and I think you might share that assessment of what he has done.

Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege. So the press asked me this morning, “Does this mean you’re going to hold them in contempt next?” I said “No, we’re gonna let the process work out” because you have to build the record. You have to build the record. ----

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/3472-speaker-pelosi-on-the-war-impeachment-and-accountability

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. Sing it!

I don't care what will or will not work politically.
I care about right and wrong.

[EFerrari]

14. I can do harmony!

:applause:

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Recall Nancy. California, get busy! Get the needed signatures and start a recall!

If she won't do her job, get rid of her.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. See, that's funny

if you think a representative can be recalled, it's funny you'd post on a thread regarding another constitutional issue.

[cali]

40. that is funny.

but people believe what they're invested in believing.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

112. Ever hear of the Dawin awards?

;)

[bobthedrummer]

16. That was part of OUR message last November-it's been ignored for long enough

k&r

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

[Trillo]

17. Enough must not feel there have been "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Ain't Best Government Money Can Buy wonderful?

Money can even buy "feelings" and "denial".

[Laurier]

18. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen.

Those who are in a position to move for impeachment don't have the guts to even try. Very sad.

[TahitiNut]

19. That's true from a deontological ethics viewpoint. Some pragmatists claim otherwise.

Some claim that it's not 'prudent' to attempt an impeachment that does not result in removal from office. This is a myopic consequentialist's argument, imho, in that it does not adequately consider ALL the consequences.

Cowardice is a vice that is conventionally viewed as the corruption of prudence. Cowardice may be considered to be prudence that does not take consequences to their furthest extent.

Cowardice is not fear, but rather a submission to vice that uses fear as a pretext.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/co/coward.html

[MonkeyFunk]

66. and some would say

that living in reality is a virtue.

[TahitiNut]

72. Well, ...

... I've never heard of a coward that didn't claim to be a 'realist' or a 'pragmatist.' Those are essentially synonymous terms in this context.

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

153. So you contend

that all realists are cowards?

Al Gore, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders... cowards?

How 'bout Kucinich? Even HE'S not trying to impeach Bush.

Don't throw slurs around so carelessly.

[TahitiNut]

170. Logic 101 doesn't seem to be your forte.

:shrug:

[barbtries]

221. especially when you consider

that one consequence is that the crimes of the administration would be put before the people, for the record.

[TahitiNut]

226. That's why I say 'myopic' ... since the (self-described) 'pragmatists' steadfastly ignore ...

... longer-term consequences and historical lessons, and cherry-pick some narrow, short-term, partisan, and/or self-serving (alleged) consequences to rationalize inaction and political cowardice.

People who'll sit still for everything don't stand for anything - and call it 'realistic.'.

[Maraya1969]

23. Here are some of the lies bush told to start his illegal war. If this isn't criminal I don't know

what is. Allowing criminal activity to occur when you have the opportunity to report it or stop it is illegal.

By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)


FOR THE PUBLIC

Legal commentary from FindLaw's Writ
LAW DICTIONARY


(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
what is:



"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

[onenote]

33. here we go again. No, there is no "duty" to impeach

The Consititution doesn't anywhere mandate that the impeachment power be used. It is extraordinarily poor legal analysis and reasoning to suggest otherwise. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between a grant of authority to act and a mandate to act. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution declares that the President shall have "the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" but no one would ever suggest that this somehow imposes an obligation on the executive to grant a reprieve or pardon in any particular instance, whether or not "justified" in some sense.

Put another way, the supposed constitutional obligation imposed on the House to impeach is absurd and unenforceable. WOuld you suggest that if the House voted on articles of impeachment that the members who voted against were somehow guilty of a constitutional violation? What if a majority voted against. Would those who supported impeachment be guilty of violating a constitutional duty? It is a nonsensical construction of the plain words of the COnstitution to suggest that it imposes any obligation on the House. What it does it confer authority, which the House can choose to exercise or not exercise as it sees fit.

And as for the oath of office, if it creates anything it creates an obligation to uphold the constitution. It doesn't specify any particular way of doing that.

Finally, if impeachment was required every time a constitutional violation occurred, how come there have been only 17 impeachments in over 200 years, yet any number of legislative and executive acts have been held unconsitutional by the courts. For example, the SCOTUS found that Truman acted unlawfully during the 1952 steel strike. Was Congress immediately obligaged to impeach him? Don't think so and no one else who has ever given it serious thought has ever thought so either.

[Richardo]

118. Nicely done.

:applause: :patriot:

...and your user name describes the impeach-o-philes to a 'T'. :thumbsup:

[EstimatedProphet]

119. Hear hear!

[Rhythm and Blue]

139. Succinctly put.

[tammywammy]

239. Good post

:applause:

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. recommened

[ladjf]

39. Yes, as simple as that.

[cuke]

46. I think they have a moral duty to protect the Constitution

After all, they did swear an oath to it. However, impeachment is not the only way to protect the Constitution. Maybe they think the best way to do that is to insure that a democrat gets elected president in 2008

[mmonk]

60. And what if that doesn't happen?

[cuke]

114. Then it's Plan B

[OzarkDem]

106. Its a legal duty

swearing an oath makes it legal, not optional.

In the final analysis, they could be held as culpable as Bush/Cheney.

[EstimatedProphet]

115. Are you honestly trying to argue that Congress should be impeached for not impeaching?

Please. Why not impeach the voters that voted in the Congress that didn't impeach?

[onenote]

121. and how would this "legal" duty be enforced?

Do you think that the courts can order the House to vote on impeachment? Can the courts order individual members of the House to vote for rather than against impeachment? Do the words "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment" mean anything to you?

There may be a moral or political obligation to pursue impeachment, but there is no enforceable legal duty to do so.

[AzDar]

47. Yea, verily.

:patriot:

[mmonk]

50. Yes, a duty ignored by those pledged to uphold it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

53. Bullshit. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

71. They took an oath of office and are bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If someone witnesses a crime and does not report it, regardless whether that person is a citizen or government employee, that person becomes an accessory to that crime and subject to prosecution.

It is as simple as that.


TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331

§ 3331. Oath of office

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331----000-.html

[MonkeyFunk]

74. Still

nowhere is the House obliged to impeach. It doesn't matter how much you kick and scream.

[onenote]

162. its not "as simple as that"

even assuming the analogy to a witness observing a crime was apt (and I don't think it is), US law generally does not impose a broad duty on persons to report a crime. This is out of recognition of the fact that determinations about whether one has witnessed a "crime" are often vague and difficult to apply to real situations. Thus, in 1822 the SCOTUS stated that "It may be the duty of a citizen to … proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge; but the law which would punish him in every case, for not performing this duty, is too harsh" (Marbury v. Brooks, 20 U.S. 556)

In any event, the more appropriate analogy (albeit imperfect) is not Congress as the witness to a crime, but to Congress as the prosecutor who decides whether to pursue charges against someone. And the notion of prosecutorial discretion to seek or not seek charges is well established.

[TreasonousBastard]

73. WRONG! WRONG ! WRONG! FUCKING WRONG!...

Find me a Constitutional authority, lawyer or historian, who says there's an obligation to impeach.

Yes, Shrub most likely has the most corrupt and inept administration in our history, and his "crimes" are legion, but impeachment is generally understood to be primarily a political process, simlar to a "no confidence" vote in parliamentary systems.

Everyone seems to forget that there has NEVER been a successful Presidential impeachment and conviction in over 200 years. NEVER! Not one. Nixon resigned before he could be convicted by the Senate, and Clinton and Johnson were absolved. In Nixon's case, he was pressured to resigne BY HIS OWN PARTY, a situation that no one sees happening with Shrub any time soon. And Nixon's impeachemnt even had to wait for a Supreme Court decision before they could proceed-- as if this Supreme Court would rule against Shrub..

Nope, Lincoln losing the Civil War, Truman when he fired MacArthur, FDR when he packed the Supreme Court, Teapot Dome... you wanna talk about low approvals and screaming on the streets and in in Congress over corruption, ineptitude and and just plain fucking up?

But, still, not ONE complete impeachment and conviction.

And you think that record will be broken now?

[merh]

77. .

PROVISIONS ON IMPEACHMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Impeachment is the direct constitutional means for removing a President, Vice President or other civil officers of the United States who have acted or threatened acts that are serious offenses against the Constitution, its system of government, or the rule of law, or that are conventional crimes of such a serious nature that they would injure the Presidency if there was no removal.

The power of impeachment is a vital part of the Constitution. It was among the proposals first presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Its terms were debated repeatedly and remained prominently in the text from the first drafts of the Constitution to the final document. Impeachment is more fully and carefully detailed in substance and procedure than any other power delegated to the Congress by the Constitution. Provisions relating to impeachment appear six times in text of the Constitution and once in an Amendment. They are:

1. Article I, which creates the legislative branch of government, in Section 2, para. 4 provides:
that the House of Representatives... "shall have the sole power of impeachment."

2. Article I, Section 3, para. 6 provides:
"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."
3. Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7 provides:
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."

4. Article II, which creates the Executive branch, in Section 2 provides the President:
...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

5. Article II, Section 4 provides:
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.

[EstimatedProphet]

116. And not once in your post does it mention impeachment being an obligation

So you really shouldn't have posted that, since it contradicts your own argument. You either can't understand the passage, or you're hoping no one will notice.

[merh]

124. There is no contradiction

If I take an oath to do something and I am the only one with the power and authority to act upon that oath, then when there is a violation and I do not act as authorized and as required under the oath and the job, then I am in violation of my duty. Thus acting is an obligation under the job and the oath.

You people are funny :rofl:

[EstimatedProphet]

132. That doesn't even come close to applying.

[merh]

140. yes it does

[Syntheto]

252. But who or what will enforce it?

Will I impeach myself, if I'm the only person with the authority to do so?

If you follow that logic out, and apply it to the real world, it means a military coup d'etat, because it will take force, and the military is the only one that has the heavy weapons, such as fighter aircraft, submarines and tank divisions.

Just because a person is obligated to impeach themselves, legally, what if they decide that they don't particularly want to? You may find this hard to believe, but that has happened before.

A bunch of people carrying signs and singing protest songs is not going to force any issue.

It really comes down to: Yeah, my bad, but who's going to take me out? You and what army?

That's the way the real world works. Maybe if you got enough martyrs killed on National television by the military and police forces that guard the White House a change can be made a few months sooner than the general election.

As for myself, I'm no hero; I'll wait until the Republicans leave office and the Democratic administration is installed. Does that make me a coward? Ask the families of the people who get smoked when they rush the barricades with molotov cocktails if it was worth it if it happens that way.

[cstanleytech]

86. I wish it could but

I know it won't.
The democrats just dont have the clout atleast not now to carry out an impeachment on Bush and I doubt they will before his term expires so like I said on another thread people need to just stop asking for it as its clear the republicans won't allow it to ever happen to him.
The democrats stand to lose far more than any gain if they would press the issue also because the moderate voters who lean right would just vote for a republican then probably and it could end up just costing more seats than anything.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Actually....

Nixon resigned even before the House could vote out articles of impeachment, not "before he could be convicted by the Senate", inasmuch as there was no impeachment for the Senate to try yet. Articles had only been voted out by the Judiciary Committee when he resigned.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

89. see #76... I listed 8

and that was just a quick google search.

[Senator]

94. What is the relevance of it never having happened before?

We've never had a woman president before, but it certainly is possible -- even likely -- given current circumstances.

It's fairly clear that any comparisons to the Clinton farce are oxymoronic. But why does anything that did or didn't happen in previous circumstances have any relationship to these circumstances?

What point are you trying to make?

And FWIW, this court has ruled against shrub on his impeachable claim that he is not bound by the Geneva Conventions.

In fact, this Senate has voted against shrub on his impeachable claim to have the power to torture.

Should an impeachment article on torture be lodged, they may well choose not to line up and the torturers for all the world, their families, and history to see. They may well demand resignations or even repeat their anti-torture vote of 90-9.

===

[Usrename]

103. This is unfuckingbelievable.

Do you really think that Nixon's own party is why he resigned?

Do you really think that it was the Republicans that wanted to impeach him?

That's idiotic.

IT WAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT WANTED HIM OUT!!!!

He wasn't "pressured to resigne BY HIS OWN PARTY" - that's fucking lunacy - his OWN PARTY COULD NO LONGER DEFEND HIM!!!!

See the difference?

Bush doesn't need HIS PARTY to defend him!!! NANCY PELOSI and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is defending him just fine!!!

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

[JuniperLea]

151. You should Google Goldwater's comments to Nixon...

Goldwater was instrumental in getting Nixon to step down. The Republicans were getting antsy and rather embarrassed.

The Republicans AND Democrats wanted him out of office.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942972-9,00.html


SNIP

A flurry of phone calls between Scott, Goldwater and three White House aides, Haig, Dean Burch and William Timmons, quickly followed. Goldwater's intention was unmistakably clear to Nixon's men: he wanted to let the President know that his Senate support had collapsed and that many Republican Senators favored his immediate resignation. The aides carried the grim news to Nixon. Finally aware of the depth of his troubles, Nixon deferred such a meeting, but his last option, resignation, loomed larger.


Edited to do it for you...

[Usrename]

217. How odd that one day his Senate support just collapsed.

And for no reason at all.


Hmmmmmm....


:think:




Maybe it could have had something to do with what happened to him the previous Saturday, when the:











COMMITTEE ON IMPEACHMENT



adopted three



ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT


against him:



Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:


making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.


In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:


He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 3
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 21-17 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




:hide:

[onenote]

229. the adoption of the articles was not the main reason nixon's support totally collapsed

The articles of impeachment were voted on July 27, 1974. A week later, pursuant to the SCOTUS decision in Nixon v. US (issued July 24, 1974), secret white house recordings were released to the public. These included the famous "smoking gun" tape that established that Nixon had personally been involved in the Watergate cover up dating back to June 1972. Within hours of the publication of the smoking gun tape, all ten republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, a majority of whom had just voted against the articles a week earlier, publicly announced that they now would vote for impeachment on the floor. That was the moment when it became absolutely clear that Nixon was going down.

[Usrename]

238. Sure, whatever.

Nixon left office over the objections of the Democratic party because his own party wanted him out. Fine, go with that thought.

Besides, impeachment was just a minor little tiny thing that nothing to do with anything. It could have been dealt with, if only his OWN PARTY didn't have it in for him.

And also weren't the Democrats stongly objecting to all of this, didn't they INSIST that impeachment be taken off the table?

Ah, but damn those pesky Republicans... they got rid of Nixon all by themselves and impeachment by the Democrats didn't ever enter into the equation.. in fact, weren't they against it?

[onenote]

240. I"m certainly not going to "go with a thought" that is not mine and nowhere is suggested in my post

What exactly is your problem with what I posted. I'm curious. All I did was point out that the idea that Nixon's support collapsed because of the adoption of articles of impeachment is not entirely correct. That the complete collapse of his support -- the absence of hope that his own party would attempt to save him -- came after the release of the smoking gun tape.

If there is something incorrect in that, please advise and I'll change it.

[Usrename]

249. I'm sorry if I'm losing you here.

This entire subthread is an attempt by me to beat down this claim that Nixon was run off the plantation by his own party.

That meme, although it's been around for a long time, is bullshit. Especially in this thread, where his resignation is being used as a club to hammer people into believing that impeachment of this president is a bad idea.

Go back up this subthread and look at the back-and-forth. It's insanity. I'm arguing with people who honestly think that Nixon resigned at the request of his "OWN PARTY".

Go look, they even capitalize it like that for EMPHASIS!!!!!!!

And every time I try to correct the narative, somebody else chimes in about how I don't have it exactly right!!!!

And it's starting to wear a little thin. The Democrats wanted Nixon out - all the members of HIS OWN PARTY loved the guy. They never turned on him or wanted him out. THEY JUST COULD NOT DEFEND HIM ANY LONGER!!! AND THEY TOLD HIM SO!!!

This current president does not need ANYONE in HIS OWN PARTY to defend him. He is being defended quite nicely by Speaker Pelosi.

SEE?

Do you understand why your post is completely, totally, absolutely wrong. The REPUBLICANS wanted Nixon to stay!!!! They did all they could do to keep him there, even to the point, as you say, of voting against the articles in committee.

That's what this whole discussion is about.

You said that impeachment had little to do with it, that a tape was why it all went down the tubes. Do you really believe that tape would have meant anything to anyone, ANYTHING AT ALL, if he wasn't being impeached?

ON EDIT> maybe this will help - nobody gave a shit about the Watergate burglary, they couldn't care less. It was the cover-up that sank the whole deal. Now, it follows that there would never have been a need for any cover-up, except that he was being impeached. See?

[onenote]

256. the repubs wanted Nixon to stay and fight, but only up to a point.

First, the effort to get the Nixon tapes began before the impeachment process. It was a request by the special prosecutor, not the Judiciary Committee, not ultimately led to the US v. Nixon case and the release of the tapes. Had there not been an impeachment process ongoing at that time, there certainly would've been one afterwards. And rather than the cover up being motivated by impeachment, it was more the other way around. The cover up began long before anyone was talking impeachment. In fact, what the smoking gun tape revealed was that the cover up began six days after the burglary -- long before anyone was talking impeachment about what was thought at that time to be a 3rd rate burglary. But while the burlary wasn't important initially, it quickly became so as it it was revealed that those involved were part of the president's re-election effort. It was that revelation that led to the creation of the non-impeachment Select Senate Committee on Watergate. That Committee's work ultimately led to a series of revelations, that then led to the impeachment effort.

Obviously, the push to start impeachment and to pursue it against Nixon was led primarily by the Democrats. But it was a bi-partisan process from the start. The non-impeachment Watergate hearings in the Senate were authorized by a vote of 77-0. The initiation of the House Judiciary hearings was approved by a vote of 404-10. Moreover, it is very likely that even after the articles of impeacchment were adopted, if he could've suppressed the release of the smoking gun, Nixon would've stayed and fought first in the House (where he almost certainly would've lost even in the unlikely event all of the repubs supported him, even those that had voted for impeachment in committee) and then in the Senate (where the outcome was less certain). But it doesn't matter, because it is a historically demonstrable fact that once the smoking gun came out, even those members of the judiciary committee who had voted against the articlese of impeachment publicly declared that they would now be voting for impeachment in the full House.

as for comparisons between the situation today and the Nixon impeachment -- they are simply misplaced. While many repubs were prepared to support Nixon to the end, the steps along the way were broadly bi-partisan (the 77-0 vote, the 404-10 vote) Today, however, there is no bi-partisan support for launching investigations or an impeachment inquiry. I wish the facts were otherwise, but those are the facts.

[Usrename]

272. Those votes were absolutely meaningless at the time they were cast.

No one feared an investigation. Even though all the people knew (or could deduce) everything that had actually transpired, no one ever suspected that Nixon had anything to be afraid of. That was all bravado, the 77-0 vote. It wasn't anything serious at all.

Everyone knew everything about ALL of this Watergate stuff BEFORE Nixon was ever even reelected in a landslide victory. The entire national debate was: "so what, who cares, what's all the fuss about?" Exactly the same response as everyone knowing today that Bush is ordering torture. He is actively doing it now. EXACTLY the same response! Right?

So no one was afraid of anything. That is what is different now, where this congress knows exactly how thin the ice really is, and nothing else is all that different, with a very notable exception: the opposition party are the ones that are defending Bush now, not his own party. HIS OWN party doesn't have to defend him at all.

There never would have been any smoking gun, even upon discovery of the tapes, if that other Congress had treated Nixon with this kind of deference. Right? Without impeachment those tapes don't mean anything. Everybody already knew everything. It wasn't some huge revelation that occurred.

[renie408]

154. Ok, I agree with most of what you said...but didn't Lincoln's side WIN the Civil War? n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

78. They do not-- this is in your imagination and on your...

wish list.

It is not a matter of law or duty, and no matter how hard you try, you can't make it so.

Even if the slimmest of chances that you are at least a little correct in this assumption of yours, the 535 people who would do the actual impeaching and trying don't agree with you, so you are simply pissing in the wind.

You cannot influence whether or not there will be an impeachment, it may or may not happen no matter how loud you scream.

So, might I suggest finding something else to scream for that has a significantly higher chance of success?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

90. what do you suggest screaming about then?

Bring the Troops home now? That's working out real well too.

[defendandprotect]

237. Basically, all you need is CONSCIENCE . .. and you get to impeachment --- !!! !!! !!!

[Blackhatjack]

80. Impeachment, Oath of Office, and Constitutional interpretation by the Judicial Branch...LINKS

Here is what the Constitution says about Impeachment:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ofYw5XKjUhsJ:www.greatdreams.com/political/impeach_president.htm+%22duty+to+impeach%22+legal+analysis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

Impeachment is mentioned only six times in the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:

"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

"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."

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Article 2, Section 4:

"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."

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury..."
*******************************************************************************

Here is the history of the Oath of Office taken by Members of Congress:


http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm

Oath of Office

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.

The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing "true faith and allegiance;" to taking "this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" and to "well and faithfully" discharging the duties of the office.

The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance."

MORE
*********************************************************************************

The Judicial Branch has historically been the final interpreter of the Constitution and the laws flowing from it. THere are numerous links to establish this but it is unnecessary to prove this.
*********************************************************************************

So the question of whether the members of the House and Senate have duties imposed upon them arises out of the meaning of the Constitution and the Laws flowing therefrom, as interpreted by the Judicial Branch.

It is certainly clear that the Members of the House have the power to initiate Impeachment proceedings in the House utilizing 'their discretion,' which means it is a choice whether to act or not.

It is not clear whether the Members of the the House have an obligation, or 'duty', to initiate Impeachment proceedings in the House based upon their oath of office which includes their sworn promise to '...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'

IF a President or Vice President of the United States commits a crime which damages the country that rises to the level of 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors', then impeachment is the only avenue available to protect the country. No one else has the power to initiate impeachment except the Members of the House of Representatives, and that means they have an exclusive duty to decide when to impeach and when not to impeach.

It is on that basis that I asserted that if they have evidence proving that Bush has committed impeachable crimes, they have 'a duty' to act by initiating impeachment proceedings or they will have violated their oath of office to defend the US Constitution and laws of this country.

AS pointed out above, the Constitution mentions 'impeachment' only 6 times. Even so, it was included as a device providing for extraordinary relief. The 'discretionary' v. 'duty' characterization of the use of this device is secondary to the ultimate obligation owed by every Member of Congress to defend our Constitutional form of government.

[Kurovski]

81. K&R. (nt)

[leftofthedial]

82. impeach the non-impeachers!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

84. You can't impeach

members of congress.

It doesn't make your point stronger when you display such ignorance.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

91. here we go again... that's the ONLY way to get rid of a member of congress

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Hint: members of the House are "civil officers"

YOU really should learn to read and comprehend. emphasis on the comprehend part.

[mondo joe]

128. Since impeachment is a power of the legisature, which body do you suggest would have

the authority to impeach a member of congress?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

129. At the Federal level,

the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment can also occur at the state level; state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, according to their respective constitutions.

snip>

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on his or her own initiative by either presenting a listing of the charges under oath, or by placing a resolution in the hopper for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members, for example: when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached; a Special Prosecutor advises the House of information which he or she believes constitutes grounds for impeachment; by message from the President; or by a charge from a State or territorial legislature or grand jury; or by petition.

The type of Impeachment resolution determines which committee it will be referred to. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment they will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more "articles of impeachment." The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

So, the House would do it, even if it concerned one of their own members. I assume that if say, a member of the Judiciary Committee was the focus of the procedure, the process would be handed off to a different committee.

[Usrename]

133. The practice has been to expell congress critters.

I think both houses have it in their rules that they can expell any member of their club by unanimous consent. I'm not sure that is the only way they are removed, but I do recall they voted Trafficant out of the club by unanimous consent. I think if he had just one person to object he would have been ok and they would have had to impeach him or something to get rid of him. I think.

Now I am wondering if he himself could have made an objection. I don't know, I'm just talking from memory, and I'm not sure of any of this.

ON EDIT> here it is:

By a vote of 420-1, his fellow lawmakers yesterday made Traficant only the second member of the House expelled since the Civil War and the fifth in congressional history. Voting against the resolution expelling Traficant was Rep. Gary Condit (D-California, 18th). Nine members voted "present."

Rep. Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania), was expelled by the House in 1980 after being convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges resulting from the FBI's Abscam sting operation.

The resolution expelling Traficant (H. Res. 495) read simply, "Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., be, and he hereby is expelled, from the House of Representatives."

[MonkeyFunk]

136. Yes

each body has the power to expel a member.

But that's not impeachment.

[Usrename]

141. Gary Condit voted against expelling Traficant.

By a vote of 420-1, his fellow lawmakers yesterday made Traficant only the second member of the House expelled since the Civil War and the fifth in congressional history. Voting against the resolution expelling Traficant was Rep. Gary Condit (D-California, 18th). Nine members voted "present."

Rep. Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania), was expelled by the House in 1980 after being convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges resulting from the FBI's Abscam sting operation.

The resolution expelling Traficant (H. Res. 495) read simply,

"Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., be, and he hereby is expelled, from the House of Representatives."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

150. Oh crap, I forgot about the rules!

my bad.
Article I, section 5
Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Thanks for the correction (honestly) :)

[Usrename]

171. Well, if you read my post you saw that my memory ain't that good.

I had it kind of hosed up at first, too. But no matter how bad my memory gets, I don't think I can forget Traficant.




Was that a rabbit on his head, or a squirrel? I used to love listening to his one-minute speeches. A fine act he was. Worst toupe ever!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

175. we correct each other,

and learn. It's what makes DU great. :)

[hisownpetard]

180. That's not a toupe - it's a prune Danish. He's saving it for his break. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

135. No

members of the house are NOT civil officers of the United States, and are not subject to impeachment.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

157. I have been corrected upthread...

which I gracefully accepted and learned something from.

it's cleansing, you should try it.

[mondo joe]

160. I've never seen MonkeyFunk gracefully accept correction.

Of course I've also never seen MonkeyFunk actually corrected either.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

163. then you should re-read this thread.

ya must have missed it.

[mondo joe]

164. No.

But you're not running a great track record on the legality of the matter.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

168. Well, I'm not a lawyer, and neither is Monkey Funk...

are you?

I've made one error, and admitted it. by my count, he's up to 7.

[mondo joe]

174. When people whothnk senators can be recalled, and Congress can impeach members,

start talking about Constitutional duties, they are not to be taken too seriously.

Furthermore, if you believe having a law degree is the deciding factor, you might consider consultig Constitutional lawyers rather than making things up because you like how they sound.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

176. I never suggested that senators can be recalled.

I did mistakenly say that Congress can impeach members, and I freely admit I was mistaken (while posting the relevant sections of the Constitution proving so).
Do you have any issues with the other facts I posted? I DID post the very names and words of 8 constitutional lawyers and scholars who agree with me. Is that not consulting? I did find one article where a constitutional lawyer disagrees with me, but since he disagrees about impeaching bush yet was all for impeaching Clinton I didn't see the relevance of his remarks.

edit: clarity

[mondo joe]

177. No, you didn't, but others did. NT

[Viva_La_Revolution]

178. and that damages my argument how?

I am responsible for what other people post?

[mondo joe]

179. When the people so vociferously saying what is constitutionally required don't

know what the hell they're talking about it diminishes the whole argument.

But I'm happy to leave you with responsibility for your own words. Congress can't impeach its members. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

186. okay then

I am apparently still responsible for what other people post (just because we happen to agree on the responsibility of Congress to uphold the oaths they took) and admitting I was wrong means nothing.

I think I understand you now.

[mondo joe]

188. It's nice to admit it when you're wrong.

But it doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. It's a pretty big misunderstanding of the basics.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

195. thank you

I did not know what I was talking about, and have since corrected that faulty knowledge and improved myself in the process. Since you keep harping on this one comment (while ignoring the other links and quotes I posted) I must assume they are correct.

I hereby swear (or affirm) to get back to the main point of the OP and stop bickering like children on a playground.

[mondo joe]

196. I refer you to post #33

as follows:


Edited on Thu Oct-18-07 08:51 PM by onenote
The Consititution doesn't anywhere mandate that the impeachment power be used. It is extraordinarily poor legal analysis and reasoning to suggest otherwise. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between a grant of authority to act and a mandate to act. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution declares that the President shall have "the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" but no one would ever suggest that this somehow imposes an obligation on the executive to grant a reprieve or pardon in any particular instance, whether or not "justified" in some sense.

Put another way, the supposed constitutional obligation imposed on the House to impeach is absurd and unenforceable. WOuld you suggest that if the House voted on articles of impeachment that the members who voted against were somehow guilty of a constitutional violation? What if a majority voted against. Would those who supported impeachment be guilty of violating a constitutional duty? It is a nonsensical construction of the plain words of the COnstitution to suggest that it imposes any obligation on the House. What it does it confer authority, which the House can choose to exercise or not exercise as it sees fit.

And as for the oath of office, if it creates anything it creates an obligation to uphold the constitution. It doesn't specify any particular way of doing that.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

201. excellent. back to the topic...

Please post the relevant statutes in the Constitution that give members of Congress the right to ignore the oath they took to "uphold and DEFEND the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?

edit: language.

[mondo joe]

203. No one said anyone has the right to ignore the oath.

How they fulfill the oath is at their discretion.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

207. Oath of Office - definition...

Formal and standard oath taken by those entering into a public office through election or appointment. This oath BINDS them to perform their duties conscientiously and in good faith.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/oath-of-office.html

I am unaware of any argument that gives an oath-taker the 'discretion' to decide how they will fulfill that obligation. Please enlighten me.

edit: cause my spelling sucks

[mondo joe]

208. Obviously, discretion is involved, since everyone does it ther own way.

If it were as simple as one mandated understanding we wouldn't need elections - we could just have robots.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

211. maybe my google is broken...

I can't find any legal argument that supports your statement.

However, I did find several links arguing that assorted elected officials should be removed due to violating their oath of office (which brings up the question... If someone is allowed to decide for themselves how to adhere to the oath, how can they ever be removed for violating it?)

curious (semi-related) tidbit I found while searching...
ABA / American Bar Association Charges Bush With Violation Of Oath Of Office & Our Constitution - Wednesday, July 26th, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/26/147209

[mondo joe]

212. If its not to their interpretatin, what means is there to police how

Congress members fulfill their oath with regard to impeachment?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

213. I'm sorry, I just can't continue this.

either post something that is not just your opinion, or this 'conversation' is finished.

[mondo joe]

214. LOL -- all you've done is offered your (uninformed) opinion based on things

you've read - like the definition of Oath of Office.

The fact is your interpretation of fulfilling the oath conflicts with others, and there is NO mandate that congress has o impeach just because you want them to.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

215. the only opinion it seems to conflict with is your's

as evidenced by YOUR lack of supporting arguments.

Fini.

[SDuderstadt]

181. Actually....

Your own source states they aren't civil officers:

"The 1799 impeachment of Tennessee Senator William Blount stalled on the grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over him. Because, in a separate action unrelated to the impeachment procedure, the Senate had already expelled Blount, the lack of jurisdiction may have been either because Blount was no longer a Senator, or because Senators are not "civil officers" of the U.S. who are subject to impeachment."

Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution provides that each house may, "with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member"(see below) and apparently for any reason they deign. Given this power, impeachment of a member would be extraneous and/or unnecessary.


"Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

189. I have admitted 4 times now (see up thread) that I was wrong

I could blame it on the late hour and the 2 glasses of Riesling, but I do not.
Must I publicly flagellate myself to earn penance?

[SDuderstadt]

190. Either that or....

Give ME two glasses of Riesling! Sorry, I didn't see the earlier threads.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

197. no sweat...

I post in haste myself sometimes. :)

Sorry, I drained the bottle, but here's something for you...

disclaimer: some assembly may be required.

[leftofthedial]

92. what point?

it was a joke.

[cali]

110. Yeah, there's a solution grounded in the real world.

Impeach all but 22 House Members and all the Senators. Wow. You've hit on the perfect solution!

[leftofthedial]

142. aww, go impeach yourself

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. Go ahead, I dare you

[Hubert Flottz]

100. A cop should always keep in mind...how will I look on TV?

Just like a congresscritter sweats the dreaded PR angle, above all other considerations, in the performance of his job.(To hell with the country and the Constitution I have to worry more about my political Image, than my sworn Duty!)

I'll bet that PC/PR "question" bugged the hell out of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, don't you? :sarcasm:

There are two kinds of patriotism in Washington...The city contains 99.9% of one kind and about .01% of the other...

1. Studio Patriotism(Soap Opera Patriotism) 99.9%

2. REAL Patriotism .01%

Who could vain, scared, stampeded, foolish, people in congress, who don't have any remotely realistic idea, How A Patriot really Acts...come up with an honestly patriotic "Patriot Act?"

[A wise Man]

107. My greatest fear is this...

...congress and the senate will allow Bush and his administration to get out of his illegal office and they all will get away with untold damages to the United States and our relationship with the world through "DEATH, THIEVERY, GREED, LIES, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT. The biggest problem is, knowone is going to do anything about it.

[WinkyDink]

111. Exactly. Succinctly and accurately put.

[H2O Man]

117. Correct.

They have a duty to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution. When the president violates the Constitution, the remedy is impeachment.

Those who argue otherwise are simply wrong. It's no different than the police, who take an oath to uphold the law, having the responsibility to arrest a bank robber.

[Usrename]

145. Exactly -

It's difficult to believe that some people can be so easily tripped up over such a simple concept.

The cop has legal obligations when acting under color of authority. The same is true with certain government officials.

It's not just a job, it's a duty, and it always carries with it the appropriate legal obligations to respond.

Hence the oath.

[JuniperLea]

156. Hear Hear!! Well said! ... eom

[librechik]

167. agree, absolutely

and I fail to see what harm it could possibly do to Democrats if an investigation was begun, or a special prosecutor appointed. The vast majority of Americans are on our side.

[Blackhatjack]

198. Thanks H2O Man, I think that pretty much sums it up. n/t

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

120. UGH!

*Bangs head against wall*

[JuniperLea]

131. Not to impeach is to condone...

Impeachment is the right thing to do! I'm sick of the bullshit excuses from the anti-impeachment crowd. Such a crock!

[spanone]

146. the system is broken....look how much money it costs to become professional politicain

it's screwed and skewed.

[tom_paine]

159. K & R

[RiverStone]

166. I can't fathom...

Why so many GET THAT here and so few get it THERE.

Well, Dennis gets it - but is seen as a lefty on the fringe for even pondering an impeachment of Shooter.

History will remember those that tried and those that did not.

[tekisui]

206. Out of the 300,000,000 people in the US, only 535 make the laws.

Only 435 can vote on Impeachment. Only two, Conyers and Pelosi, can facilitate the vote. A criminal POTUS and a criminal VPOTUS only need to intimidate/threaten/befriend those two to ensure their crimes go unchecked.

It really doesn't matter if they are legally bound or morally bound. Who can stop them from enabling?

Whatever the Constitutional law IS, Conyers and Pelosi have failed us. Pelosi said nothing will bring Impeachment to the table. I wonder if chimpy chose to violate the COTUS by declaring himself King, or staying in office past Jan. 21. 2009, Pelosi would still proclaim Impeachment off the table. At some point, which I believe we've passed, it IS THE DUTY of the Congress to Impeach, and how can anyone say it is not?

[baldguy]

185. The Constitution isn't a document about politics, its a document about laws

And it doesn't limit the punishment to only removal from office. If it so wishes, the Congress can order the defendant's arrest & imprisonment also.

[Rhythm and Blue]

194. Actually, no, it cannot. At all. That is expressly prohibited.

Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 prohibit bills of attainder. Impeachment is strictly about removal from office.

[baldguy]

199. There would be no bill of attainder. An impeachemnt proceeding is a trial.

[Rhythm and Blue]

200. And the only Constitutionally-sanctioned outcome of that trial is removal from office. nt

[H2O Man]

205. Not quite.

It's not a criminal trial, and so incarceration isn't an option. But removal from office is not the only consequence.

[Blackhatjack]

209. Correct. See Article 1, Sec 3, Clause 7 .... Excerpt Provided....

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

"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."

[Rhythm and Blue]

267. You realize that explicitly supports my claim, right? nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

269. Incorrect.

The only consequences possible from impeachment proceedings are removal from office and barring from holding office again.

[H2O Man]

270. Well, sport

you just added the other one.

[Rhythm and Blue]

271. "The other one" is a fairly obvious outgrowth of the first,

to the extent where I didn't feel it warranted mention--especially when replying to a post claiming that incarceration was a possibility. I mean, I suppose I could have said, "And removal from the office the impeached officer held and a subsequent ban from holding that or similar offices of public trust is the only constitutionally-sanctioned outcome of that trial nt," but that's rather pointlessly unwieldy, isn't it?

Trying to claim "the other one" somehow invalidates my claim in any way is a rather shoddy attempt to save face.

[H2O Man]

273. Actually, it is

a possibility. It isn't always part of the penalty. So it should never be mistaken for a "fairly obvious outgrowth." I have no need to save face.

[Rhythm and Blue]

274. Oh, this is just getting sad. nt

[H2O Man]

275. You are.

But that doesn't change that people can be impeached, and removed, and go on to hold office again. You should be aware of an obvious example in Washington right now.

[Rhythm and Blue]

277. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Jesus, man. Pathetic. You and I are both aware that the "barring from again holding office is:"

1. Secondary to removal.
2. Contingent on removal.
3. An outgrowth of removal that is frequently but not universally applied
4. A triviality in the discussion that was being had, which was whether or not the same punishments that exist in a criminal trial exist in impeachment.
5. Implied in my original post.

[Blackhatjack]

202. You do acknowledge that initiating Impeachment Proceedings is NOT THE SAME as Impeachment, right?

Initiating impeachment proceedings starts the inquiry and examination of evidence that MIGHT support a vote of impeachment.

Actual impeachment is a vote by the House that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the President(or other impeachable official) has engaged in 'treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors'.

Just as cases are not tried in advance of obtaining evidence, impeachment is not voted upon without an inquiry and acquistion of evidence.

It is entirely proper for the House to initiate impeachment proceedings, open an inquiry and find that there is insufficient evidence to support a vote on impeachment, and a vote on actual impeachment might never occur.

[liam_laddie]

224. Agreed! A cogent POV...

The investigative phase would provide much news that would wake up some of "Bush's base" (god help them in their ignorance...) and even if the House then achieved a simple majority to indict, it is most unlikely that the Senate in the near term would achieve a 2/3 majority to convict. I'm just stunned that most posters everywhere, who loath Bush as much as I do, do not seem to understand that the process is complex and time-consuming. Plus John Roberts presiding over the trial in the Senate? Nightmare! Better to cut off funding for the war; these supplementals must CEASE!
The Dems have to strategize that such a vote is more important than their fear of backlash. Pitiful excuse...

[onenote]

225. correct. and it also is entirely proper for Congress to never start an impeachment inquiry

Its entirely left to their discretion as to how to proceed in carrying out their "sole power" with respect to impeachment.

[Blackhatjack]

230. The duty to initiate impeachment arises when the House has evidence proving the crime was committed

IN the OP:

"...the Members of the HOUSE HAVE A DUTY TO IMPEACH BUSH for crimes that he has committed for which they have evidence proving same."

There is no discretion when they have evidentiary proof of the crimes committed that meet the standard for impeachment('treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors').

Why?

Because their oath of office prevents them from looking the other way when the Constitution is under attack.

[onenote]

234. hypothetical

Let's say that the president ordered (or was complicit in ordering) citizens of the United States rounded up and sent off to relocation camps. Lets say that some people claimed that this was a violation of the constitution.

Under your theory, the House would be compelled to impeach.

Yet, of course, the scenario I posed was the situation during WWII when Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to relocation camps. And that relocation, as it turns out, was held by the SCOTUS to be consitutional.

This illustrates the problem with your approach. The House doesn't convict. The Senate does. Its up to the House to decide only whether or not to go forward. Your approach would, in effect, require there to be an impeachment inquiry and up/down vote on impeachment every time an impeachment resolution is filed (impeachments don't start themselves). THat's not what the founders intended, its not what 225 years of history indicates is the law, and its just incorrect.

[Rhythm and Blue]

268. Of course. Why?

[onenote]

223. someone who is impeached can, in the normal course, be indicted, tried, punished

but not by Congress, which does not have judicial powers. Congress can merely impeach, convict, and remove from office.

[helderheid]

191. Yep.

[RebelSansCause]

210. here, here

i sincerely hope that the democrats do not use the excuse when the win POTUS oh look at what * did, so now i can go and defy the constitution too. although hillary...... here, here as i was saying, i could not agree more, even if there is no explicit law, the duty does seem to be implicitly defined.

[mopinko]

216. hey, that's what henry hyde said when they impeached bill

so, what the fuck?
i will never forget his fat laden voice, spouting over and over- the rooool of laaaaaaw.

[barbtries]

218. i fully agree,

and am beyond disgusted that impeachment proceedings have not been initiated.

[defendandprotect]

219. Congress has legal responsibility to defend Constitution - CORRECT!!!

And that comes before any other responsibility ---

It is their primary responsibility ---

Again -- if investigations provide evidence for impeachment -- or suspicions grow that the President -- and even VP are involved in questionable activities harming the nation --
then it is beholden upon them to IMPEACH Cheney/Bush ---

It is urgent that the Congress stand up for the Constitution ---

It is urgent that the American public stand up for the Constitution ---

[onenote]

222. moral obligation, political duty: sure; legally enforceable obligation? nope

The Constitution grants the House the "sole power" of impeachment and the Senate the "sole power" to try impeachments. The federal judiciary has no role, something that the courts have confirmed in several cases in which they concluded that controversies relating to how the impeachment process is conducted are "non justiciable".

So, how would you propose that this "legal responsibility" be enforced. Who can compel the Congress to act and under what authority?

[Blackhatjack]

228. Actually you are wrong ....

The federal judiciary does have a role to play in the process.

First, IF there is impeachment by the House, then the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court acts as the Judge Presiding over the trial in the Senate.

Second, when it comes to deciding how the Constitution and its terms are to be interpreted, the Judicial Branch can and would step in if a case is presented to them on that issue.

Members of Congress are 'compelled to act' in accordance with their sworn oath they have taken to defend and uphold the US Constitution and Laws of this Country.

[onenote]

233. Actually, i'm not wrong and I have the citations to back it up.

First, the role of the Chief Justice as presiding officer in an impeachment trial is mostly to make sure the trains run on time and to issue rulings on evidentiary questions. However, any ruling by the Chief Justice can be challenged by a single Senator and a decision whether to abide by or overrule the CJ's ruling is then decided by a vote of the Senate which is binding and unalterable.

See rule VII: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/rules.htm


Second, the courts have been presented with questions as to whether an impeachment process is being conducted in accordance with the Constitution. And they have found that the issue is not "justiciable" by the courts.

See Nixon v. US, 506 US 224 (1993):

"Petitioner devotes only two pages in his brief to negating the significance of the word "sole" in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that "he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." We think that the word "sole" is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word "sole" appears only one other time in the Constitution--with respect to the House of Representatives' %sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, §2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The common sense meaning of the word "sole" is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. "Sole" is defined as "having no companion," "solitary," "being the only one," and "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body "tried" an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference." (snip)

"The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment provisions support our reading of the constitutional language. The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers. See 290 U. S. App. D.C., at 424, 938 F. 2d, at 243; R. Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 116 (1973). This silence is quite meaningful in light of the several explicit references to the availability of judicial review as a check on the Legislature's power with respect to bills of attainder, ex post-facto laws, and statutes. See The Federalist No. 78, p. 524 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) ("Limitations . . . can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice").


What have you got?

[Blackhatjack]

241. You posted: "The federal judiciary has no role,..." Wrong. Chief J. of SCOTUS presides over trial...

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch of Government, and presiding over the trial in the Senate is 'playing a role.'

If you believe that the SCOTUS will refuse to play its traditional role of interpreting the wording of the Constitution, you are dead wrong.

[onenote]

243. your view on the SCOTUS is intersting given the SCOTUS cite I provided

Want to explain how I could be "dead wrong" in my view that the SCOTUS views impeachment issues as non justiciable when, in fact, the SCOTUS has held that they are non-justiciable?

This should be interesting.

[onenote]

245. the role of the Chief Justice is very limited and is subject to reversal by the Senate

It is correct that the Chief Justice acts as presiding officer. But the CJ's role is constrained by the rules of the Senate, which provide that upon the request of any member of the Senate, any ruling by the CJ can be challenged and resolved by a vote of the Senate. So if the CJ was to rule that some evidence was inadmissible or othewise attempt to dictate the scope of the proceedings, the SEnate could overrule him with a simple majority vote and there would be no further recourse. THere is no appeal or review of impeachment matters by the judiciary. As the SCOTUS has clearly held, the commitment of impeachment to the "sole" power of the House and Senate means that questions regarding the impeachment process are not justiciable by the judiciary.

ONe reason for this, among many, is that the only way a judge can be removed is through impeachment. ANd thus, just as a president couldn't "veto" an impeachment resolution, the courts can't review impeachments.

[robinlynne]

236. I do solemnly swear to uphold the constitution of the United States of America and protect

it...

[defendandprotect]

246. Ironically, this thread causes me to recall that Ollie North was assigned to

suspend the Constitution -- Martial Law .. .


HERE HE IS . . . YOUTUBE -- !!!

With loving memories of Rep. Jack Brooks -- !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ&mode=related&search=



AND HERE'S AN INTERESTING ANGLE ON IT -- ALITO!!! ???

Did Alito sign off on Ollie North's plans to suspend Constitution ?
... the approval of Ollie North's plans to suspend the Constitution, and how would ... According to Chardy, the secret plan called for suspension of the ...democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&... - 59k - Cached



Quote
January 15, 2006
Flashback: Ollie North & Secret Gov Plans for Martial Law
Filed under: US Govt, Class Warfare, headline news, Impeach — ben @ 9:13 am
This article was headline news in the Miami Herald July 5th, 1987, considering the Katrina Concentration Camps and the Iran War talk, this seems highly relevant again today.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, for example, helped draw up a controversial plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad.


http://benfrank.net/blog/2006/01/15/secret_govt/



Quote:
We should not forget that North ran a bizarre series of operations out of the Reagan White House that involved the attempted subversion of the U.S. Constitution and total disregard for legality and the democratic process.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0113-03.htm

[defendandprotect]

258. The Constitution is a legal document . . .. here's another way to look at this ---

For instance . . .

Here are a mix of other ways to look at this ---
But it is technically the interests of the PEOPLE the representatives act for --
and preserving our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- Bill of Rights --
should be primary and we should INSIST be enforced.

QUOTE:
Glossary
A written document sworn on oath before a person with authority to administer it.
..... legally binding. Able to be enforced by law. legatee ...
lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/go01.php UNQUOTE

Came upon this from Ron Paul . . . here arguing against Signing Statements --

Here in his final paragraph he is citing "Congressional need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the Constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us."

QUOTE: Concerns with signing statements ought to include a concern for the health of our constitutional republic, it ought not to be based upon the political battle of the day. Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us. IMQUOTE

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_defend_the_constitution.htm

Also, this ---

QUOTE: The Constitution of Ireland (Irish: Bunreacht na hÉireann)<1> is the founding legal document of the state known today both as Ireland and as the Republic of Ireland. The constitution falls broadly within the liberal democratic tradition. It establishes an independent state based on a system of representative democracy, and guarantees certain fundamental rights. The constitution was adopted in 1937 by referendum, and may only be amended in the same manner.UNQUOTE

Constititution is a legal document
Constitution guarantees fundamental rights

And --

This is from the Belarusian Constitution ---

Note: the link to full text is below --
I have tried to narrow this out to what I think is pertinent to this subject.

Section I Principles of the Constitutional System

Article 1

(1) The Republic of Belarus shall be -- based on the rule of law.

(2) The Republic of Belarus shall defend -- its constitutional system, and safeguard legality and law and order.

Article 2

(1) The individual shall be of supreme importance to society and the State.
(2) The State shall bear responsibility towards the citizen to create the conditions for the free and dignified development of his identity.

Article 3

(1) The people shall be the sole source of state power in the Republic of Belarus. The people shall exercise their power directly and through representative bodies in the forms and within the limits specified in the Constitution.
(2) Any actions aimed at seizing state power by forcible means or by way of any other violation of the laws shall be punishable by law.

http://www.belarusguide.com/statehood/Constitution_1994.html


Here's just a blurb re Syria's feelings on the matter --

QUOTE: The Constitution of Syria
... oath is ... Laws are binding only following the date of their enactment and ... the sacred duty to defend the homeland's security, to ...www.mideastinfo.com/documents/Syria_Constitution.htm - 78k - Cached

4) Freedom is a sacred right and popular democracy is the ideal formulation which insures for the citizen the exercise of his freedom which makes him a dignified human being capable of giving and building, defending the homeland in which he lives, and making sacrifices for the sake of the nation to which he belongs. The homeland's freedom can only be preserved by its free citizens. The citizen's freedom can be completed only by his economic and social liberation.UNQUOTE

"A Sacred Duty" . . . . ??

Here's yet again another interesting angle on it --

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES


And, I'd say that this makes clear that the President's oath to act Constitutionally is LEGALLY binding --

QUOTE:
1. The President's office and authority are created and bounded by the Constitution; he is required to act within its terms. Put somewhat differently, in serving as the executive created by the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the laws -- including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law. This obligation is reflected in the Take Care Clause and in the President's oath of office.UNQUOTE

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

...AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER FORMS OF LAWS . . .
Now, this can possibly be argued in favor of Bush's "Signing Statements" --
and/or argued that the Constitution supercedes the Military Combatant Act or the Patriot's Act --

http://www.answers.com/Is%20oath%20of%20office%20legally%20binding%3F

[tammywammy]

244. You can say that the impeachment of Bush & Cheney is a moral one

But, there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the House to being impeachment proceedings.

[defendandprotect]

261. There is an oath because there is a DUTY . . . perhaps even a "Sacred Duty" . .. ???

Granted you can't "force" anyone to act out of conscience or morality, but the PEOPLE can continue to try to FORCE the representatives to action to preserve our liberties and freedoms.

This is an inherent right which exists with or without a Constitution, as our founders noted --
but the laws of the nation are based upon the Constitution and stablity of the nation and continuity of our laws and our Constitution are to be preserved.

[NekoChris]

248. Let's simplify this:

Why did our last president, get impeached for adultery, a 'crime' that is best handled through private channels and didn't really concern anything in the political world AT ALL in the grand scheme of things because it was internal strife between a husband and wife? There are all kinds of arguements for it, either for or against, I don't care about either side, my point is, he got impeached for it. I go on to ask why did he for that, but..

This president doesn't get impeached for lying to the masses, abuse of power, incompetance in foreign affairs, and pretty much everything else. Maybe what we really need is just a clean sweep of everything. We should just re-elect EVERYONE. President, Vice President, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court. EVERYONE should be put on the block for election.

..if only.

[defendandprotect]

253. THAT was a purely political attack on Clinton; highly maniputed and probably conspiratorial ---

For one, Kenneth Starr had set up the fund for Paula Jones --
Additionally, a number of right-wing Senators -- Faircloth and . . . . . ??
set up the deal with the Judge.

In some future time, this should be reversed --
Otherwise, we will be leaving other presidents also open to having sexual affairs investigated.
Though -- this was simply entrapment.

[truedelphi]

254. You mention "lying to the masses" whereas Republian after Republican took

To the podium to say that as much as they might like Bill Clinton, they could not
avoid the Duty to impeach -as he had lied and thereby proven himself unfit.

[defendandprotect]

259. Also note that Republicans are saying "Duty to impeach" .... !!!

[truedelphi]

278. Yes you are right. They are. Even people who were legal scholars

Employed by Reagan and Bush the Elder have said that.

[mvd]

251. I think both sides have a point

To those who say it is not required, the Constution IS procedural when it talks about impeachment. Here is what is said in Article II, Section 4:

“ 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."

And to those who say it does require impeachment, I believe the spirit behind the Consitution does promote action - just like when people rob a store, authorities most of the time don't decide not to prosecute.

[L0oniX]

255. Constitution? We don't need no stinking constitution!

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography; also in Mark Twain in Eruption

[tavalon]

257. Unfortunately, their obligation is only ethical

and I'm not sure if you've noticed, but ethics are in short supply on either side of the Congressional aisle.

[earth mom]

260. Exactamundo. But try & tell that to those who REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. They think they are THE LEADERS

of the citizens of this country instead of REPRESENTATIVES. NOT!!! :grr:

[defendandprotect]

262. The Constitution is a legal document . . .. here's another way to look at this ---

The Constitution is a legal document . . .. here's another way to look at this ---
For instance . . .

Here are a mix of other ways to look at this ---
But it is technically the interests of the PEOPLE the representatives act for --
and preserving our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- Bill of Rights --
should be primary and we should INSIST be enforced.

QUOTE:
Glossary
A written document sworn on oath before a person with authority to administer it.
..... legally binding. Able to be enforced by law. legatee ...
lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/go01.php UNQUOTE

Came upon this from Ron Paul . . . here arguing against Signing Statements --

Here in his final paragraph he is citing "Congressional need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the Constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us."

QUOTE: Concerns with signing statements ought to include a concern for the health of our constitutional republic, it ought not to be based upon the political battle of the day. Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us. IMQUOTE

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_defend_the...

Also, this ---

QUOTE: The Constitution of Ireland (Irish: Bunreacht na hÉireann)<1> is the founding legal document of the state known today both as Ireland and as the Republic of Ireland. The constitution falls broadly within the liberal democratic tradition. It establishes an independent state based on a system of representative democracy, and guarantees certain fundamental rights. The constitution was adopted in 1937 by referendum, and may only be amended in the same manner.UNQUOTE

Constititution is a legal document
Constitution guarantees fundamental rights

And --

This is from the Belarusian Constitution ---

Note: the link to full text is below --
I have tried to narrow this out to what I think is pertinent to this subject.

Section I Principles of the Constitutional System

Article 1

(1) The Republic of Belarus shall be -- based on the rule of law.

(2) The Republic of Belarus shall defend -- its constitutional system, and safeguard legality and law and order.

Article 2

(1) The individual shall be of supreme importance to society and the State.
(2) The State shall bear responsibility towards the citizen to create the conditions for the free and dignified development of his identity.

Article 3

(1) The people shall be the sole source of state power in the Republic of Belarus. The people shall exercise their power directly and through representative bodies in the forms and within the limits specified in the Constitution.
(2) Any actions aimed at seizing state power by forcible means or by way of any other violation of the laws shall be punishable by law.

http://www.belarusguide.com/statehood/Constitution_1994...


Here's just a blurb re Syria's feelings on the matter --

QUOTE: The Constitution of Syria
... oath is ... Laws are binding only following the date of their enactment and ... the sacred duty to defend the homeland's security, to ...www.mideastinfo.com/documents/Syria_Constitution.htm - 78k - Cached

4) Freedom is a sacred right and popular democracy is the ideal formulation which insures for the citizen the exercise of his freedom which makes him a dignified human being capable of giving and building, defending the homeland in which he lives, and making sacrifices for the sake of the nation to which he belongs. The homeland's freedom can only be preserved by its free citizens. The citizen's freedom can be completed only by his economic and social liberation.UNQUOTE

"A Sacred Duty" . . . . ??

Here's yet again another interesting angle on it --

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES


And, I'd say that this makes clear that the President's oath to act Constitutionally is LEGALLY binding --

QUOTE:
1. The President's office and authority are created and bounded by the Constitution; he is required to act within its terms. Put somewhat differently, in serving as the executive created by the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the laws -- including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law. This obligation is reflected in the Take Care Clause and in the President's oath of office.UNQUOTE

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

...AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER FORMS OF LAWS . . .
Now, this can possibly be argued in favor of Bush's "Signing Statements" --
and/or argued that the Constitution supercedes the Military Combatant Act or the Patriot's Act --

http://www.answers.com/Is%20oath%20of%20office%20legall...

[Honeycombe8]

263. On what grounds? n/t

[baldguy]

264. to start...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/articles-of-impeachment-a_b_36303.html

[bdamomma]

276. yea the House has the right to impeach, it is their tool to use

and apparently we the people have a right to get rid of government who is not by and for the people, domestic and foreign, we have the right to disband them all, we both have choices.

[defendandprotect]

279. Now . . . we the PEOPLE have to move them to IMPEACH . . .

Hope you read my post 262 --
Somewhere in there I recall typing something that suggests that OBVIOUSLY our Constitution will override any other claims of control over the people . . .

Of course we are talking about our natural inherent right to be free --
And it should supersede any other claims -- presidential/military or corporate --

At least that's how I think we should all see it ---