NationStates Jolt Archive

It has become painfully obvious in the past few months that the Republican majority in Congress is forsaking their responsibility to check the powers of the other branches of government...in particular the executive branch.

President Bush's administration is beset on a wide number of fronts by questions of potentially (and highly) illegal activities including (but not limited to):

The Valerie Plame (CIA Leak) Case-
Recent releases of court papers by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice-President's former chief of staff, directly implicate Vice-President Cheney in leaking the name of former CIA employee Valerie Plame in order to discredit her husband, a harsh Bush critic.

The Domestic Spying Controversy-
Evidence continues to mount that the Bush Administration's ordering of wiretaps without court order or review was, in fact, a clear violation of federal law.

The Iraq War-
As seven former U.S. generals (two of them former commanders in Iraq) call for Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, it has become clear that the Administration deliberately witheld certain intelligence while releasing other documents for public consumption. This seems to suggest that the Administration KNEW that the invasion of Iraq was based on shaky foundations from the very start, and that it was actively cultivating public support by selective application of the facts.

We have here a President and a Party who are out of control. Mr. Bush is not upholding his responsibilities as President...it is the duty of the Executive to enforce the law, not to ignore it when it is convenient for him to do so. It is the job of the President to give an accurate accounting of the facts before we go to war, not trump up the threat in order to scare the American people into action. And it is Congress' job to keep the Executive from becoming too unruly.

Alas, the Republican Congress has no apparent interest in disciplining the Republican President. While some G.O.P. congressmen (most notably Arlen Specter) have openly called on the Administration to "come clean", there has been no real concrete movement towards any type of actual action to address the issue.

So maybe the Democrats should be bold and MAKE it an issue.

Perhaps, if they are elected, they should promise to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate some of these charges against the White House. And if indeed criminal activity has taken place (as appears to be the case), they should likewise promise to bring action against the President and his people, such as censure or impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached for far less than the deaths of thousands of U.S. servicemen. If the war was unjustified, then the blood of those soldiers is on Bush's hands, and he SHOULD be impeached. The integrity of our democratic system demands no less.

Impeaching him's fine. I think some kind of 5.56mm justice is in order.

If they try this, I doubt that it would actually succeed as this type of platform will not tell America how they will make our nation better.

If they try this, I doubt that it would actually succeed as this type of platform will not tell America how they will make our nation better.
Well, the point is that it would be a plank, not the entire platform.

Well, the point is that it would be a plank, not the entire platform.

A plank that won't work.

Impeaching him's fine. I think some kind of 5.56mm justice is in order.

That's a terrible thing to say, and furthermore not too bright. You can easily get in trouble with the Secret Service for just saying something like that.

A plank that won't work.

Perhaps not, but at least it would be a morally-acceptable thing to do. Your conservative buddies are just winking and nodding while the President is breaking the law. The G.O.P. has fallen a long way since it joined the Democrats to threaten Nixon's impeachment.

A plank that won't work.
Sez you. I don't see much downside in going after a president who's not over 40% in any poll. Even Rasmussen had him at 39% this week, and they've always had him the highest.

That's a terrible thing to say, and furthermore not too bright. You can easily get in trouble with the Secret Service for just saying something like that.

Probably, but on the other hand the Second Ammendment is made for situations like this, isn't it?

(Not that I'm an American, so don't flame me to death if I'm wrong).

Perhaps not, but at least it would be a morally-acceptable thing to do. Your conservative buddies are just winking and nodding while the President is breaking the law. The G.O.P. has fallen a long way since it joined the Democrats to threaten Nixon's impeachment.

Actually they didn't threatened. Articles were actually drawn up. That is why I actually respect Nixon for resigning. Of course, I wasn't to thrilled to read that Ford pardon him. Frankly, I would've let the lout rot in a jail cell.

And they are not my conservative buddies. I have my own problems with the President and those that are in power.

Sez you. I don't see much downside in going after a president who's not over 40% in any poll. Even Rasmussen had him at 39% this week, and they've always had him the highest.

Just because he has low poll numbers is no reason to call for his impeachment. This isn't Great Britain nor Canada nor Japan.

Just because he has low poll numbers is no reason to call for his impeachment. This isn't Great Britain nor Canada nor Japan.You know better than that. We have legitimate reasons to call for censure at the very least, and impeachment as well--reasons listed in the opening post that have nothing to do with popularity. Those reasons would still exist if Bush were at 80% approval--they'd just be less politically tenable.

Politically, there's no downside in going after an unpopular president. This isn't 2002. Bush has no stroke left, politically speaking.

Just because he has low poll numbers is no reason to call for his impeachment.

I don't think Nazz was saying it calls for his impeachment so much as it could help facilitate it.

You know better than that. We have legitimate reasons to call for censure at the very least, and impeachment as well--reasons listed in the opening post that have nothing to do with popularity. Those reasons would still exist if Bush were at 80% approval--they'd just be less politically tenable.

Politically, there's no downside in going after an unpopular president. This isn't 2002. Bush has no stroke left, politically speaking.

Doesn't matter in my opinion. If he has done something that deserves censoring, I'd be calling for it for I take the office of the Presidency serious.

Corneliu, if the President did indeed inflate intelligence in order to launch a war on Iraq, does that or does that not in your eyes represent an impeachable offense?

Corneliu, if the President did indeed inflate intelligence in order to launch a war on Iraq, does that or does that not in your eyes represent an impeachable offense?

I would personally say impeachable, but then you didn't address the question to me, sorry. I hope you don't mind.

I don't think Nazz was saying it calls for his impeachment so much as it could help facilitate it.

As I said, this isn't Great Britain with a no confidence vote.

As I said, this isn't Great Britain with a no confidence vote.

And yet you claim to be one of the more democratic countries in the world.

Corneliu, if the President did indeed inflate intelligence in order to launch a war on Iraq, does that or does that not in your eyes represent an impeachable offense?

if it can be proven, and so far there is no evidence to that effect, then maybe I would refer it to the House judiciary committee for further action.

As I said, this isn't Great Britain with a no confidence vote.

What the hell do you think impeachment is?

And yet you claim to be one of the more democratic countries in the world.

Dude, we have this thing called elections in which we oust those people that they don't like.

What the hell do you think impeachment is?
Don't take it personally--Corneliu conflates apples with dogshit all the time.

Dude, we have this thing called elections in which we oust those people that they don't like.

Yeah, but that's once every four years. If it transpires that someone's rule is self-serving or simply making the country crash and burn after a year then you should have the power to remove them, no?

if it can be proven, and so far there is no evidence to that effect, then maybe I would refer it to the House judiciary committee for further action.
It's been proven dozens of times over--just because you let partisanship get between you and the truth doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

Tell me, what do you think of the latest revelation about the mobile weapons labs that the Iraq Survey Group told the Bush administration weren't labs two days before Bush crowed about their discovery, and that Cheney was claiming were labs four months later? Does that count as lying?

Yeah, but that's once every four years. If it transpires that someone's rule is self-serving or simply making the country crash and burn after a year then you should have the power to remove them, no?

We do, it's called impeachment, where Congress decides the president's a dick and they all agree he should be taken out, and that's exactly what we've been talking about. Just this dude is some kinda dunce who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I don't know whether or not it would be a good strategy from a national standpoint, but I know that I would vote for a Dem if they were to actually push for impeachment.

I would also vote for any Dem with the guts to say, "Gays should be able to legally marry, women's bodies are their own fucking business, and poor people deserve more than the swift sword of death."

But until the Dems are willing to give me a reason, I'm not voting for them. Right now they are trying to out-GOP the GOP. Waste of time, that.

We do, it's called impeachment, where Congress decides the president's a dick and they all agree he should be taken out, and that's exactly what we've been talking about. Just this dude is some kinda dunce who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I see... but due to the level of cronyism, that is utterly unlikely.

Why not just hold a public referendum on the matter?

I see... but due to the level of cronyism, that is utterly unlikely.

Why not just hold a public referendum on the matter?

Because the constitution does not provide for that.

For impeachment to work, you need to prove that the President commited a crime, be it a felony or high treason. Impeachment is not to remove an elected official just because you don't like him/her.

For impeachment to work, you need to prove that the President commited a crime, be it a felony or high treason. Impeachment is not to remove an elected official just because you don't like him/her.

Andrew Johnson would disagree.
Though he broke the Tenure of Office Act, that act itself could arguably have been put there just to put a president in an impeachable position.

Andrew Johnson would disagree.

Andrew Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act. Although it was later declared unconstitutional, he did break the law. Granted, Congress was looking for an excuse for Impeachment, but Johnson did break the law.

Because the constitution does not provide for that.

For impeachment to work, you need to prove that the President commited a crime, be it a felony or high treason. Impeachment is not to remove an elected official just because you don't like him/her.

Well then, it needs an ammendment. Sharpish.

Also, this wiretapping deal actually gets investigated, we might have all the evidence of law-breaking we need.

Well then, it needs an ammendment. Sharpish.

And amendment to make public officials subject to the whims of the public....great.

And amendment to make public officials subject to the whims of the public....great.

That would be actual democracy.

Also, this wiretapping deal actually gets investigated, we might have all the evidence of law-breaking we need.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that Bush didn't break the law, I was just clarifying a constitutional issue.

And amendment to make public officials subject to the whims of the public....great.

Well, isn't that what democracy is, though? We elect a fellow to represent us, decide he's do a bad job and replace him. That's the problem with our version of representative democracy anyway, that there's no fixing a mistake for another few years.

What the hell do you think impeachment is?

There's a difference between an impeachment and a no confidence vote. A no confidence vote spells the end of a prime minister with new elections to procede. An impeachment is bring charges against the President for Trial in the US Senate.

That would be actual democracy.

Thank god we live in a Republic, and not a democracy.

Thank god we live in a Republic, and not a democracy.

And yet your army goes around "spreading democracy" to countries that have no need of it.

Yeah, but that's once every four years. If it transpires that someone's rule is self-serving or simply making the country crash and burn after a year then you should have the power to remove them, no?

Presidential elections, certianly that's true.

Thank god we live in a Republic, and not a democracy.

A democratic republic, actually.

And yet your army goes around "spreading democracy" to countries that have no need of it.
Believe me, many of us are quite humiliated by that.

Why the shit are we "spreading democracy," when our own Founders spent years doing everything they could think of to prevent America from becoming a democracy?

We do, it's called impeachment, where Congress decides the president's a dick and they all agree he should be taken out, and that's exactly what we've been talking about. Just this dude is some kinda dunce who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Its a bit more complicated than saying "he's a dick".

And yet your army goes around "spreading democracy" to countries that have no need of it.

Trying to change the subject, are we?

Because the constitution does not provide for that.

For impeachment to work, you need to prove that the President commited a crime, be it a felony or high treason. Impeachment is not to remove an elected official just because you don't like him/her.

You forgot Misdeamenor.

Its a bit more complicated than saying "he's a dick".

Don't be a dick, I'm putting things in simple terms, simple enough even you ought to understand them.

A democratic republic, actually.

*looks around*

I see no democracy here. I see a republic, where our elected officials can make the difficult decisions without being subject to the short-sighted public.

Andrew Johnson would disagree.
Though he broke the Tenure of Office Act, that act itself could arguably have been put there just to put a president in an impeachable position.

Duh. That was why they wrote it the way they did. On top of that, they overrode Johnson's veto. Luckily he was not convicted.

Well then, it needs an ammendment. Sharpish.

Then every president would be impeached.

*looks around*

I see no democracy here. I see a republic, where our elected officials can make the difficult decisions without being subject to the short-sighted public.

What's a republic but a representative democracy?

Thank god we live in a Republic, and not a democracy.

A federal republic at that.

Don't be a dick, I'm putting things in simple terms, simple enough even you ought to understand them.

And yet this is not as simple as you make it out think it is. Impeachment =/= conviction. Do you understand the Impeachment Process at all?

What's a republic but a representative democracy?
In a pure democracy, everything would be up for a vote. The Founders of the American government wanted to set up a system where certain rights were protected NO MATTER WHAT, and certain fail-safes would be un-votable.

In other words, the idea is that the majority can never rule completely. This is a very, very good thing.

What's a republic but a representative democracy?

In our Republican system of government, the power of governance rests with the people, but the people do not rule. It's a pretty good system, actually.

And yet this is not as simple as you make it out think it is. Impeachment =/= conviction. Do you understand the Impeachment Process at all?

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you're acting like a dick.

Then every president would be impeached.

If over 50% of people who voted didn't want them in power, yeah.

In a pure democracy, everything would be up for a vote. The Founders of the American government wanted to set up a system where certain rights were protected NO MATTER WHAT, and certain fail-safes would be un-votable.

In other words, the idea is that the majority can never rule completely. This is a very, very good thing.

Wasn't the term they used "Tyranny by the Majority"?

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you're acting like a dick.

Actually, right now, your the only one who is "acting like a dick".

In our Republican system of government, the power of governance rests with the people, but the people do not rule. It's a pretty good system, actually.
I think it's a damn brilliant idea for a system of government, and there are some remarkably elegant mechanisms in place. Of course, there are plenty of things the Founders did not account for, and there are some nasty ways to get around many of the rules they did put in place, and the system is far from perfect. But still, I think it's one hell of a cool idea.

If over 50% of people who voted didn't want them in power, yeah.

Dude, even Bill clinton didn't get over 50% of the vote so over 50% of the population didn't want Bill Clinton in office. Under this, he would be impeached.

Bush did get over 50% of the vote in 2004. Using your logic, he won't be impeached.

In a pure democracy, everything would be up for a vote. The Founders of the American government wanted to set up a system where certain rights were protected NO MATTER WHAT, and certain fail-safes would be un-votable.

?


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

In our Republican system of government, the power of governance rests with the people, but the people do not rule.

aka "a form of representative democracy"

?


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

True but you know how difficult it is to actually get an amendment passed?

That's a terrible thing to say, and furthermore not too bright. You can easily get in trouble with the Secret Service for just saying something like that.

POLICE STATE

It could be politically cataclysmic, Granted, if the impeachment is upheld, it would be effective, however, if it fails it could utterly destroy the democrat campaign, whilst it would do little to augment the public perception of politicians in the US, nor the external perception of US politics.

I would be reticent to use such impeachment as a central tenet of an election, it could backfire spectacularly.

Dude, even Bill clinton didn't get over 50% of the vote so over 50% of the population didn't want Bill Clinton in office. Under this, he would be impeached.

Bush did get over 50% of the vote in 2004. Using your logic, he won't be impeached.

You are deliberately confusing voting with approval rating.

Clinton consistently had high approval ratings.

Bush has consistently had low approval ratings.

Dude, we have this thing called elections in which we oust those people that they don't like.

Oh really. So you associete yourself with the average Bush voter then? Well done, a credibility boost for you sir. Have a gold sticker.;)

?


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

There is a legitimate question among Constitutional scholars as to whether an Amendment -- such as one repealing the First Amendment -- could itself be unconsitutional and therefore void.

Regardless the amendment process was deliberately made so overwhelmingly difficult that it would be unlikely for fundamental rights to be taken away via Amendment.

Ultimately the power of Amendment is a fail-safe. Part of the checks and balances of the system.

You are deliberately confusing voting with approval rating.

Clinton consistently had high approval ratings.

Bush has consistently had low approval ratings.

He said nothing about approval ratings.

If over 50% of people who voted didn't want them in power, yeah.
Dude, even Bill clinton didn't get over 50% of the vote so over 50% of the population didn't want Bill Clinton in office. Under this, he would be impeached.

Bush did get over 50% of the vote in 2004. Using your logic, he won't be impeached.

Oh really. So you associete yourself with the average Bush voter then? Well done, a credibility boost for you sir. Have a gold sticker.;)

Hey I was looking for a new President however, I also have to see if they can actually do the job. Kerry's record (or what he actually released) showed that he really was not cut out to be President. I wished he was though.

True but you know how difficult it is to actually get an amendment passed?

fairly difficult. averaging about 1 every 8 years (though the bill of rights skews that a bit, since those amendments were pretty much written at the same time as the constitution and were essentially required in order to make the counterrevolution at all acceptable to large sections of the country).


but my point stands. it still says that everything is up for a vote - including the process of amendment itself. some things just require a bit more of a vote than others. so that isn't a difference between representative democracy and 'pure democracy'.

Because the constitution does not provide for that.

For impeachment to work, you need to prove that the President commited a crime, be it a felony or high treason. Impeachment is not to remove an elected official just because you don't like him/her.

Not true.

You do not have to prove the President committed a crime to impeach him. A crime is neither a necessary nor a sufficient ground for impeachment. Impeachment may be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

He said nothing about approval ratings.

In context, the point was obvious. If a Presidential candidate didn't win an election, he wouldn't be elected President and no impeachment would be necessary.

So obviously it does not matter what percentage of the vote the President got in determining whether he should be impeached.

If they try this, I doubt that it would actually succeed as this type of platform will not tell America how they will make our nation better.
It worked for Republicans.

But until the Dems are willing to give me a reason, I'm not voting for them. Right now they are trying to out-GOP the GOP. Waste of time, that.
Why are the Republicans called the Grand Old Party, when in fact the Democrats are the older party?

And yet your army goes around "spreading democracy" to countries that have no need of it.
Don't threadjack.

Why the shit are we "spreading democracy," when our own Founders spent years doing everything they could think of to prevent America from becoming a democracy?
The US isn't really installing political systems that are any more democratic than its own system. When politicians say "democracy" they don't mean it literally. It's just shorthand version of representative democracy.

Dude, even Bill clinton didn't get over 50% of the vote so over 50% of the population didn't want Bill Clinton in office. Under this, he would be impeached.

Bush did get over 50% of the vote in 2004. Using your logic, he won't be impeached.
Bill Clinton was impeached.

?


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Um, yes. Read what you posted. :)

There is a legitimate question among Constitutional scholars as to whether an Amendment -- such as one repealing the First Amendment -- could itself be unconsitutional and therefore void.

how could it be? wouldn't the ratification of it put it in the constitution on equal footing?

and what would that do to the already existing amendments that directly repealed other amendments, and those that significantly modified earlier amendments that themselves directly contradicted the original text?

Bill Clinton was impeached.

I know he was. To bad the Senate didn't convict but alwell. I've accepted the decision of the Senate.

It worked for Republicans.


Why are the Republicans called the Grand Old Party, when in fact the Democrats are the older party?

Well, it depends on how you define the age of the party, I suppose. The parties as we know them are radically different from even 50 years ago, let alone once you start stumbling back into the 19th century :).


The US isn't really installing political systems that are any more democratic than its own system. When politicians say "democracy" they don't mean it literally. It's just shorthand version of representative democracy.

Yes, I know, I am just tired of hearing this "democracy" buzzword crap. We aren't spreading democracy, we don't live in a democracy, and we should be goddam thankful that we don't!

I think it would be a good plank to run on, in some states. In other states, it would turn voters away from the Dems quickly. While it could see a very solid "North" voting block, any southern senate seats would have to be won with much more finesse, and a whole lot less brutal response.

The GOP has consistantly played a clever hand, under Rove, with which Democrats now must deal. The Republican smear machine has painted the dems as having no plan. To win in the places where this (false) idea has permiated, the Dems must have a real plan (not the nonsense "Defense" plan they proposed before).

While we are at it, we should deal with all those judges who are replacing the law with their own opinions. That's a bigger threat, as there is really no way to restrain them.

While we are at it, we should deal with all those judges who are replacing the law with their own opinions. That's a bigger threat, as there is really no way to restrain them.

Like Thomas and Scalia.

Um, yes. Read what you posted. :)

well, i guess you could say " a system where certain rights were protected unless it is decided not to, and a certain fail-safe (singular) would be unvotable without the consent of the party in question, but otherwise completely votable"

Like Thomas and Scalia.
How about Roy Moore?

Oh, but I forgot, THOSE guys have opinions that are GOOD. What we need to do is get rid of the ACTIVIST judges. You know, like the ones who ruled that women should be allowed to vote and blacks should be allowed in our schools.

How about Roy Moore?

Oh, but I forgot, THOSE guys have opinions that are GOOD. What we need to do is get rid of the ACTIVIST judges. You know, like the ones who ruled that women should be allowed to vote and blacks should be allowed in our schools.

Actually CT has VERY strong opinions on Thomas and Scalia. They're decisions actually leaned him closer to supporting the 2nd as an individual right against SCOTUS precedent. That tells you alot right there.

Ever pause to consider that maybe...

now, this is just hypothetical, mind you.

Maybe G.W.B. isn't lying, isn't cheating, isn't stealing. Maybe he is coping with one of the most stressful jobs on the Earth, which has turned his hair grey and given him wrinkles. Maybe he keeps making tough decisions every day regardless of yet another pointless and insignificant poll that came out.

And where do we get polls anyways? hmm? Are all americans asked? I have worked in polling, my friends. You take 30 polls. Through random dispersion of people, eventually one of those polls will reflect the percentages you want. You say 'we took a poll and here it is' with the utmost of honestly. Polls mean nothing.

But, back to our hypothetical situation. Just, considering that hypothetically to be true, what about his supporters? African-American Homosexuals for Bush? What about them? They came out to support him in the election and, as a group, have not come out to protest him in any form. Are they not supporting a man they respect and hold dear?

Now, hypothetically assuming he is doing horrible, corrupt and destable things, Where is the public outcry? Where are the riots, the marches, the cries for freedom and justice? It seems that every time I hear of an Anti-War protest (and they are always Anti-War protests, not anti-Bush protests) I also hear about how the protest was protested by a corresponding Anti-Anti-War protest. When people take to the streets in droves with intelligent arguments and feasable solutions, then we can talk. Until then, please... the ten of you, refine your arguments so maybe, hypothetically, there can eventually be 11 of you here. Maybe then Id be more inclined to give you a second thought.

Now, if you will excuse me, Im going to go support the economy by going to work. I suggest you do the same.