What's The BEST Legal Justification For Bush's Impeachment?

[ulTRAX]

I don't believe the House should use their power to impeach a
President lightly. I would never again want to see a minor offence
used as a pretense for a political coup as was attempted against
Clinton by the GOP. I believe censure would have been appropriate in
that case. That being said just what constitutes the Constitutional
requirement for impeachment of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

I personally believe that George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes for
his unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. It does NOT matter
whether the world or his people are better off without Saddam. What matters is whether Bush broke US laws or whether the breaking of international laws qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor.

Bush is supposed to be a President bound to uphold the laws of the land... not a lone avenger who can world outside US laws and Treaties were are bound to. The notion that "the world changed after 911" somehow gives the US the right to unilaterally use force in international affairs is nonsense. 911 did NOT change international law to make unprovoked attacks against sovereign nations, no matter how despicable, legal.

Article IV of the US Constitution is VERY clear that "This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."

One of those treaties was the UN Treaty which the US Senate ratified
on June 28, 1945.

The UN Charter is VERY explicate in its provisions such as :

"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security, and.
justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations."

Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm

The UN Charter does NOT permit unprovoked acts of aggression even if Bush's neo-con junta euphemize them as "preventative
wars". Bush is CLEARLY guilty of violating international law therefore
the Constitution itself. The Congressional Resolution authorizing Bush
to go to war http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html itself claims power from
UNSC resolutions that just is NOT there in the text of those
resolutions. The UNSC NEVER authorized any nation to take unilateral
action to enforce UNSC resolutions. UN 1441 REJECTED the proposed US language that authorized any member state to act on its own.

The much cited UN 687 does require Saddam to follow though on the ceasefire actions he'd agreed to but 687 does NOT grant any authority to member states to unilaterally restart the war as many claim. It reserves that authority for the UN Security Council. Again read the LAST paragraph of 687: "The Security Council....

"34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

The much cited 1998 Iraq Liberation Act does NOT provide a legal basis for war. It ends: SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak
to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

Source : http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

The neo-cons claim even Clinton supported their assessment. But the bulk of the quotes I've seen presented are typically from 98. Even if they were accurate then... a big if... a lot can change in 5 years. Bush also had over TWO YEARS from when he first started to plot his war to update his intelligence assessments before he invaded. The neo-cons even set up a separate intelligence department in the Pentagon to review CIA intelligence and to spin it in ways to provide justification for the invasion. Even then their BEST case was all smoke and mirrors.

I certainly Bush's deliberate defiance of international law qualifies as a "high crime"... don't you?

[jbfam4]

1. They used the same intelligence that Clinton did.

every time I hear this my blood pressure goes up. Surely the intelligence has been updated.

[ulTRAX]

2. updated intelligence

The accusation seemed so easy to refute... yet who in the press did? But the problem comes up again when people like Hilary and Kerry were making similar statements into 2002. Rush was quoting a Kerry editorial written for the NY Times today which I believe was from 9-02.

But I should add that this is a side issue to the main topic I was hoping to discuss.

[SemperEadem]

33. Bush should be held to no less than the very exact conditions

to which Bill Clinton was held... that he lied to the American people. The GOP/rethugs made a complete puritanical stink over a non-issue--saying that the credibility of the office of the presidency was at stake. Is the office now no less deserving of the same "reactionist protection" that it enjoyed back in 1999? It is certainly derserving of reasoned protection, and to that end, Bush has failed in the execution of his duties... something he swore he would not do. He has dishonored the very oath he swore. He deceived the people when he ran for office... he stole the election and was subsequently appointed by 5 people on the Supreme Court. He has condoned the most unChristian behavior since Ronald Reagan towards his fellow Americans. He has squandered a budget surplus and then turned around and wanted another $87 billion for his 'Lie War'.

What sort of 'beltway-vulgar' things has he done?

Vindictively outting a CIA Agent
Lying to the world about Iraq's WMD
Not finishing its mission in Afghanistan before leap-frogging over to Iraq. (Next we'll be leap-frogging over to Lebanon or Syria.)
Whole-hearted endorsement of shipping American mfg jobs overseas in order to say the economy is growing--he fails to mention it's India's economy that's growing, not ours.
Bankrupting this country in more ways than honor can suffer.


We would be here all day listing the reasons why he needs to be gone.


The Most Brilliant TV moment I witnessed this week
I'm so glad I was able to witness this on Monday's Spin Factor:
"That's the difference... I'm being precise. You're being imprecise..." (cut to c/u of O'Reilley ; sound up on bird, cricket and frog chatter)
Hans Blix stunning the fuck out of O'Reilly, who had no comeback and was stupified for about 5-8 seconds 3/15/05 Brilliant! Really.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. Even if true (which I doubt)

Clinton DID NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF INVADING IRAQ!

So what if the intel was bad (and we ignore all the evidence of them distorting or just plain fabricating information) the Clinton Administration looked at that data and weighed it against the unknowns and consequences of the various potential policies and DID NOT INVADE. As it turns out they did the RIGHT THING.

Even if you give George "It's not my fault" Bush every benefit of the doubt (which he does not deserve IMO) he still fucked it up. There is no way to spin this as being anything but a colossal blunder. Add into the mix the deliberate distortions, the OSP etc. etc. and you get a betrayal of the public trust on a monumental scale.

[ButterflyBlood]

3. that he isn't the legitimate president to begin with

n/t

[ulTRAX]

4. what is legitimacy?

Bush was legally installed by the Electoral College. I believe what you're trying to say is that Bush in MORALLY illegitimate. But under our system... that is not an impeachable offense. Our federal system is anti-democratic to the core.

While the EC SHOULD outrage us all... all too many prefer to blame Florida and the USSC for Bush. They are incapable for placing the blame where it belongs: on our anti-democratic and virtually reform-proof Constitution.

Our system not only deprived the American People of a morally legitimate President (assuming that we also had a run-off system to get to 50%+1 of the vote) who looks at the possible effect it has on the candidate that was REJECTED by the People yet is installed anyway? I believe it's one of the main reasons the Bush Junta has so much contempt for the American People. I believe people like Bush, Rove and Cheney see us only as chess pieces to manipulate.

[Malva Zebrina]

5. Hitler liked to brag that everything he did was legal, also

electorally legally installed? The Supreme Court taking the case in the first place was not legal nor was it in their domain to accept such a thing in the first place. It should be obvious that they were bought and paid for--take a look at how their kids all got lucrative jobs in Bush's government, although Rehnquist's daughter did not pan out too well. The election was a farce--the system broke down--Bush sent in thugs to intimidate the vote counting--the sad part is that no one challenged it--they just meekly surrended and allowed Bush to become the fascist he is without having to worry one bit about anyone challenging him.

We the people, were NOT served well by either party.

[ulTRAX]

11. florida and USSC were not to blame for 2000

While I can sympathize with the outrage most of us feel about 2000. I believe blaming it on Florida and the USSC is missing the point.

The fallacy of your logic can be seen with this example. What if Bush had a CLEAR 20,000 vote victory in Florida. No recount would have been done... the USSC would not have gotten involved. The EC installs Bush the winner even though he LOST to Gore by 530,000 votes nationally.

What would you think then? Would you FINALLY see it's the Electoral College that's the real problem?

As long as we Progressives don't identify the REAL problem... we can't work on real solutions.

[Malva Zebrina]

19. No the real problem was that the SCOTUS took the case over the

Florida Supreme Court and essentially nullified that body. Florida and Katherine Harris and her role deserve all the blame.

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book None Dare Call It Treason He laid it all out almost immediately and he makes complete sense.

I think it is YOUR logic that suffers.

We cannot go on "what ifs" that are totally divorced from what really happened. That is really poor logic and a straw man. We do have facts with which we can argue the case and there is no need for "what ifs"

What ifs are good propostions for metaphysical propostions but not when there are actual facts present with which to argue your case.

[ulTRAX]

27. the EC is the problem

Marianne wrote: "No the real problem was that the SCOTUS took the case over the Florida Supreme Court and essentially nullified that body. Florida and Katherine Harris and her role deserve all the blame."

Here's where your logic fails: Kate Harris, hanging chads, the GOP goon squad, the USSC... were ONLY factors because of the anti-democratic method we use for electing a president. It gave the vote of one US citizen in Bush's Florida 1000X the weight of a US citizen who voted in Gores national lead. The EC is a vote weighing scheme.

NONE of those who you blame would even been factors in the 2000 election if we had a morally legitimate method of electing a president. By that I mean a popular vote with a run-off system that guaranteed that the winner get 50%+ of the vote.

"We cannot go on "what ifs" that are totally divorced from what really happened. That is really poor logic and a straw man. We do have facts with which we can argue the case and there is no need for "what ifs"
What ifs are good propositions for metaphysical propositions but not when there are actual facts present with which to argue your case."

This is NOT a case of "what if". It's simply a plea for Democratic and Progressives to identify the REAL culprit in the 2000 election. If you can't identify the real problem you'll never push for real solution. A true DEMOCRATIC VOTE is the cure.... not keeping your head in the sand hoping some minor tweak of an anti-democratic and dysfunctional system will fix it. The EC, is by the democratic principles we SHOULD hold dear.... morally irredeemable. Such vote weighing schemes are ILLEGAL on all other levels of government. See Renyolds v Sims http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

BTW... you avoided my point: "The fallacy of your logic can be seen with this example. What if Bush had a CLEAR 20,000 vote victory in Florida. No recount would have been done... the USSC would not have gotten involved. The EC installs Bush the winner even though he LOST to Gore by 530,000 votes nationally.

What would you think then? Would you FINALLY see it's the Electoral College that's the real problem?"

[ButterflyBlood]

6. no, he is not legitimate in any way

the Supreme Court overruled the will of Florida voters, which is not Constitutional.

[ulTRAX]

9. what's to blame for 2000?

While I certainly condemn what the USSC did in 2000... it's hard to make a case that it was unconstitutional. The simple fact is that our CONSTITUTION was the problem.

The EC is in keeping with the anti-democratic nature of our Constitution. It has installed 4 presidents who did not win plurality of votes. It's also installed president's like Clinton who did not win the majority of the votes.

The fallacy of your logic can be seen with this example. What if Bush had a CLEAR 20,000 vote victory in Florida. No recount would have been done... the USSC would not have gotten involved. The EC installs Bush the winner even though he LOST to Gore by 530,000 votes nationally.

What would you think then? Would you FINALLY see it's the EC that's the real problem?

[outinforce]

8. It Would Be A Spectacle

It would be a real spectacle to see members of the House, who voted to give Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq, debating articles of impeachment.

But the even bigger spectacle would be to see the Senators, many of whom voted to give Bush war-waging authority, sitting in judgment and casting votes to remove him from office.

It wasn't just Bush. It was Bush and Congress who got us into Iraq.

[ulTRAX]

10. looking at political obstacles can come later

outinforce wrote: "It would be a real spectacle to see members of the House, who voted to give Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq, debating articles of impeachment."

Yup. Maybe the war resolution, itself, has to be examined for legality. I haven't read it for a while but there's a few holes in it that I pointed out in my first post.

The point I want to raise is that it's useful exercise to think about the BEST case for impeachment and not let consideration of the political obstacles interfere with that process. Who knows what we can come up with!

[RedEarth]

12. John Dean, former White House counsel for Nixon, has written

several articles for Findlaw(link below) and also has a book coming out titled "Worse than Watergate; The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush". Perhaps there might be some way to contact Dean and find out if he thinks there is any legitimate grounds for impeachment. Seems like he might have a feel for this subject.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/

[UTUSN]

13. Crimes Against Democracy n/t

[ulTRAX]

14. the CONSTITUTION is a crime against democracy

The Facts: The electoral college has installed 4 presidents that did not win a plurality. I don't know how many others were installed without winning the majority. The US Senate now provides 15% of the US population 50% of the seats. Soon it will be 10%. There are no safeguards for the majority. A minority President and Senate have special constitutional responsibilities which can allow them to pack the federal judiciary or enter the US into international treaties. The amendment process can be blocked by states with as little as 4% of the US population. The 37 smallest states that can approve an amendment are about 25% of the population. Add to that states can be Gerrymandered so 49% of the votes gets 70% of the seats.... this happened in Texas in the early 90's. The perps then were the Democrats.

I think the evidence is clear. the US political system is about as anti-democratic as a democratic republic can get. Yet this issue is off the radar.

[shance]

15. Wow. Thats interesting. Never had considered it from that perspective.

Great points.

[ulTRAX]

17. great article

While I always detested the EC I never really began to think about just how anti-democractic the Senate was until I read this MoJo article back in early 98: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind_DUP2.html

[kodi]

21. what appalling rhetoric.

Crime you say? Since when is a form of government a crime?

And just tell us, who made you arbiter of judgment in this matter?

Are you some sort of God?

Words have cultural, semantic intent and are not simply what both you and Humpty Dumpty demand as their meaning.

Repeatedly on this site your posts have demanded that democracy be cast exclusively by your own definition, relegating other forms of representative forms of government as heretical to your philosophy of "democracy".

Apparently, your abundant posts on this topic indicate an utter ignorance or contempt of what drove the Framers of the US Constitution to form the US government as a federal representative democracy.

I have not seen in even one of your posts any critical analysis of why the Framers of the the US Constitution got it wrong when they made our government.

All I have read from such posts is a knee-jerk "one man, one vote" attitude, devoid of any historical context.

The Framers recognized that the pure form of democracy you worship was never historically sustainable, and in fact the primary cause of the utter dissolution of those governments was due to the actions of direct democracy.

Look it up in a history book, its all there. One need go no farther than examine the deaths of the direct democracies of the French Revolution or the Paris Commune that proceeded the Constitutional Convention or ancient Athens which fell to Sparta, itself an oligarchy.

The US Constitution is a form of government that tempers direct democracy while recognizing that the participants have rights and responsibilities, and that the federal nature of the US government requires that states as well as citizens are the participants.

Your posts on this subject show no clear understanding of that. States also have rights and carry out responsibilities under this federal democratic republic, not just citizens.

If you wish to debate why they should not have rights and responsibilities under a federal form of government, or if you wish to show us in detail how a pure democracy is sustainable, do so, because no one in history has been able to do it yet.

If you can show me a form of the pure democracy you blather on about that has been sustained throughout an historical era equal in time to that which the US government has existed, i will concede to your point, but until then, you need to go back and at the least begin to educate yourself on the discussions of representative democracy in the works of Locke and the Federalist Papers, the Albany Plan of Union of 1754, the Iroquois Confederacy (from which much of the Albany Plan of Union came), and Aristotle's Politics on how and why the US Constitution was formed the way it was.

But please, until you can actually defend how your Utopian form of pure democracy will work in this century, stop with the rhetoric that calls the US government criminal and deadly to democracy. It makes your otherwise valuable contributions here suspect.

[ulTRAX]

22. the CONSTITUTION is a crime against democracy

kodi "what appalling rhetoric. Crime you say? Since when is a form of government a crime?"

When it is morally illegitimate. By what standard? That government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Surely you have heard of that phrase.

"And just tell us, who made you arbiter of judgment in this matter?
Are you some sort of God?"

Speaking of appalling rhetoric. My observation is based on the math of how representative our federal government is of the people... whether it insures civic equality where all votes weigh the same... and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs.

"Repeatedly on this site your posts have demanded that democracy be cast exclusively by your own definition, relegating other forms of representative forms of government as heretical to your philosophy of "democracy"."

See above.

"Apparently, your abundant posts on this topic indicate an utter ignorance or contempt of what drove the Framers of the US Constitution to form the US government as a federal representative democracy."

I FULLY understand the rationale for the origins of the Constitution. What I do NOT agree with is that citizens should feel they are bound by the politics of 1787. The Framers did what they had to forge a stronger nation. But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away. Soon they were forgotten. That is except for some courageous citizens that knew that slavery had to be opposed... women and people of color deserved the vote etc.... REGARDLESS if the Framers thought differently. Well there's one LAST group of citizens that have been Constitutionally disenfranchised: citizens in large population states. It's time someone advocated for THEIR rights.

"I have not seen in even one of your posts any critical analysis of why the Framers of the US Constitution got it wrong when they made our government. All I have read from such posts is a knee-jerk "one man, one vote" attitude, devoid of any historical context."

Why is what happened 220 years ago relevant today? Then there were 13 colonies, each who jealously protected their sovereignty and prerogatives. The nation either had a stronger national government or devolved into chaos. The Framer's solutions accomplished what they were supposed to: unified the nation. But this is today. Yet you treat the Constitution... as dysfunctional and anti-democratic as it is... even after a Bush was IMPOSED upon the nation, as if it were handed down on a slab.

"The Framers recognized that the pure form of democracy you worship was never historically sustainable, and in fact the primary cause of the utter dissolution of those governments was due to the actions of direct democracy."

RED HERRING ALERT: Have I EVER suggested "pure" or "direct" democracy" Retraction noted as if offered.

"Your posts on this subject show no clear understanding of that. States also have rights and carry out responsibilities under this federal democratic republic, not just citizens."

I'm well aware of our system of dual suffrage. I think the concept has to be revisited... ESPECIALLY since it's at the root of why Bush is President today. There is NO escaping this fact that the Constitution has FAILED its job to produce morally legitimate government.

"If you wish to debate why they should not have rights and responsibilities under a federal form of government, or if you wish to show us in detail how a pure democracy is sustainable, do so, because no one in history has been able to do it yet. "

RED HERRING ALERT 2: Why is it that this infamous red herring about direct democracy refuses to die? Do YOU have any idea where YOU picked it up? It SHOULD be obvious that we could have a representative democracy without state suffrage... with a Bill of Rights... expanded if need be... and the states could STILL remain as semi-sovereign legal entities. The rest of your red herring rant is repetitive and already been addressed.

But since I'm sure you still don't get it... you really need to rethink what constitutes morally legitimate government. Let me borrow a passage from REYNOLDS v. SIMS which outlawed vote weighing schemes in the state. While the federal government is immune to this decision... the logic is compelling... at least to those who believe in democratic concepts. Obviously you do not.
Source http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect of <377 U.S. 533, 563> state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. 40 Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or 10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable. One must be ever aware that the Constitution forbids "sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination." Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 342 . As we stated in Wesberry v. Sanders, supra:

[kodi]

25. saying so don't make it so.

When it is morally illegitimate. By what standard? That government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Surely you have heard of that phrase.


Examine your logic, by such a standard, if the consent of the governed can produce any system of government, including one that weighs individual votes unequally, then it is legitimate, or is it? Careful now, don’t show any Western cultural bias in answering.

Is that truly acceptable, viz., that the consent of the governed is the only feature involved in creating a legitimate government?

Or is it that one person, one equally weighed vote is the legitimizing force? The two are not necessarily going to produce the same result. And it is obvious that it is not voting , even equal weighting of votes alone that affects government. I guess I question your fetish that “one person, one vote” will achieve some sort of Utopian Democracy.

My observation is based on the math of how representative our federal government is of the people... whether it insures civic equality where all votes weigh the same... and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs.


Again, by demanding that only people legitimately have equal representation in a federal form of government you have dismissed the rights of the participating local forms of government at the federal level, viz., the states in a federal government.

The dynamics and interests of each are balanced by the way the two Houses of Congress are structured.

In the House, representation is equal for the people, but not the states, and in the Senate, the reverse is true.

The logic you employ implies that the Senate could be justifiably abolished and the only legislative arm would be the House of Representatives. The logical conclusion of such is the abolition of states, because they have the potential through state laws to injure equal representation of citizens at the federal level. (Note that this is a realized fact when reviewing the inequality in voting rights of convicted felons in different states.)

That is not a federal form of government. Is that what you are promoting, the abolition of the states in an effort to promote “civic equality?”

…..and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs.

Funny that you say that, since that is the affect of the fundamental flexibility of the US Constitution that has allowed this Republic to survive longer than any other in history.

But since it does not result in what you want, it’s not working. Interesting syllogism there. It’s the same attitude that the Secessionists held, btw.



I FULLY understand the rationale for the origins of the Constitution. What I do NOT agree with is that citizens should feel they are bound by the politics of 1787. The Framers did what they had to forge a stronger nation. But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away. Soon they were forgotten. That is except for some courageous citizens that knew that slavery had to be opposed... women and people of color deserved the vote etc.... REGARDLESS if the Framers thought differently. Well there's one LAST group of citizens that have been Constitutionally disenfranchised: citizens in large population states. It's time someone advocated for THEIR rights.

It is not 18th century politics that bind us, it is the Constitution; the fundamental law of the country, and that document has meant many things over time.

As to a red herring, yours is showing with your:

“But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away ”

No doubt they did try, as anyone who has taken the time to read the Federalist Papers and their correspondences would admit. But the Framers compromised each step of the way to get to the document ratified, and reference to having compromised the Declaration of Independence is yet another fishy remark. The two documents did not have the same intentions. Both of us know that. So they did not incorporate all of the same ideas and ideals. Unless you truly want a “Creator/God” written into our Constitution, after all, its in the Declaration of Independence.

Was slavery bad? Of course it was, slavery and the affect of it, the Great Compromise that allowed black humans to be counted as 3/5’s a person for apportionment is the original sin of this nation. We still suffer from it.


Why is what happened 220 years ago relevant today? Then there were 13 colonies, each who jealously protected their sovereignty and prerogatives. The nation either had a stronger national government or devolved into chaos. The Framer's solutions accomplished what they were supposed to: unified the nation. But this is today. Yet you treat the Constitution... as dysfunctional and anti-democratic as it is... even after a Bush was IMPOSED upon the nation, as if it were handed down on a slab.


Ouch, your hysteria is showing. The states, 220 years later still protect their sovereignty and prerogatives from each other and the federal government. Just watch the Senate on C-SPAN. Each state has its own constitution and many have enshrined in such documents rights that are far above that granted in the US Constitution.

No one considers the US Constitution an unassailable divine document. After all there are over two dozen amendments to it, And regardless of your opinion that a strong national government precludes state prerogatives at the federal level, state prerogatives or at the least state concerns at that level are important and they serve to protect its residents.

But finally you reveal why you attack the US Constitution, and lo’ and behold, it was because George W Bush won in 2000.

I'm well aware of our system of dual suffrage. I think the concept has to be revisited... ESPECIALLY since it's at the root of why Bush is President today. There is NO escaping this fact that the Constitution has FAILED its job to produce morally legitimate government.


Well I hate what happened on Dec. 12, 2000 too. I consider it to have been a judicial coup d’etat, but I seriously question the legitimacy of your argument because I bet that had Gore won the Electoral College and not the popular vote you would not now be standing on your soap box screaming about our immoral Electoral College elected Executive branch of government.

So you might as well get off the soap box as to “morally legitimate government.”
I’m not buying your sophistry.

RED HERRING ALERT: Have I EVER suggested "pure" or "direct" democracy" Retraction noted as if offered.

Bahahaha! You make me laugh. You don’t suggest it; you actually proclaim it with each remark about abolishing the Electoral College and a direct election of the presidency.

Did you presume that my response to your demand to abolish the Electoral College was referring to abolition to the Legislative Branch and not to be taken in the context of your desire to elect the president by popular vote?

As to your use of the specious logic of employing REYNOLDS v. SIMS as a defense for abolition of the Electoral College:

No American state government has an inherent federal nature, viz., composed of residing local member governments with their own constitutions that may grant different rights from each other or surpass those by state constitutions in which they reside, as the federal government is composed of states with their own constitutions, that grant rights that are not enumerated at the federal level. A commonwealth is not a federal republic in microcosm.

There is to my knowledge in America nowhere a local or county constitution grants rights that supersede those of the state constitution the locality resides. While state constitutions can enumerate rights that are not enumerated by the federal US Constitution, no local government grants rights not recognized by a state constitution.

That is the difference, and why using the logic of extrapolating REYNOLDS v. SIMS from state situations to federal ones is intellectual buggery.

Btw: you will find my retraction three inches from your lower intestine with your remark about me not believing in democratic principles. I am army veteran who has put his body on the line for this country. You might reconsider insulting one who willingly was ready to fight and die for your right to be wrong.

[ulTRAX]

30. The Constitution vs Democracy

ulTRAX: When it is morally illegitimate. By what standard? That government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Surely you have heard of that phrase.

Kodi: "Examine your logic, by such a standard, if the consent of the governed can produce any system of government, including one that weighs individual votes unequally, then it is legitimate, or is it? Careful now, don’t show any Western cultural bias in answering."

In selling the Constitution the theory is that it somehow all balances out. The simple truth is does not. The ripples of an anti-democratic system run deep and have unpredictable consequences. Because the Senate is anti-democratic... it can ratify Clarence Thomas with Senators representing less than 50% of the American People. Thomas becomes a key vote in stopping the Florida Recount. Bush wins in the EC even though some 3 million more people wanted a democratic-left America. Bush uses his powers to secure GOP control of the Senate and House. He may even win reelection. ALL of this is because our system allows some citizens bigger votes at the expense of others. The simple fact is you are incorrect.

Kodi: "Is that truly acceptable, viz., that the consent of the governed is the only feature involved in creating a legitimate government?"

It certainly is a PRIME feature in self-government. But there also has to be a body of law to protect minorities, and I believe a system of checks and balances etc.

Kodi: "Or is it that one person, one equally weighed vote is the legitimizing force?"

SCOTUS seems to believe so. It outlawed such vote weighing scheme on all OTHER levels of government. See Reynolds vs Sims. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

Kodi: "The two are not necessarily going to produce the same result. And it is obvious that it is not voting , even equal weighting of votes alone that affects government. I guess I question your fetish that “one person, one vote” will achieve some sort of Utopian Democracy."

I think the low voter turnout in the US is deplorable. But I also see it as logical consequence of a dysfunctional and anti-democratic system. Our first past the post electoral system may have been the best 18th century minds could devise.... but there's been 2 centuries of progress made. Yet the US is stuck in 1787. No I do NOT see civic equality where all votes weigh the same as a utopian ideal. It's just a necessary BEDROCK principle in a democratic republic. So should be having a system that encourages voter turnout. One way is though proportional representation. I'd favor the Senate being converted into a national parliament based on party elections. If the Greens or Libertarians each get 5% of the national vote... they each get 5% of the seats. Currently our system is biased towards geographical voting units... and political minorities can never muster a win in any one unit even though they may make up sizeable minorities nationally. Our system forces citizens who care enough to vote to often chose the lesser of the evils rather than voting their conscience. Ever wonder why we have a entrenched 2 party system?

ulTRAX: "My observation is based on the math of how representative our federal government is of the people... whether it insures civic equality where all votes weigh the same... and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs."

Kodi: "Again, by demanding that only people legitimately have equal representation in a federal form of government you have dismissed the rights of the participating local forms of government at the federal level, viz., the states in a federal government. The dynamics and interests of each are balanced by the way the two Houses of Congress are structured. In the House, representation is equal for the people, but not the states, and in the Senate, the reverse is true. "

Congratulations on remembering your 4th grade history. I'm afraid, however, it's mostly Constitutional apologetics. States suffrage is written into our Constitution but in reality states rights are mostly an illusion. We pretend that California or Wyoming are voting for their senators... when in reality it's just the citizens of each state. It just gives US citizens who chose to live in Wyoming 68X the power in the Senate than citizens in California. It's supposed to even out because of the House but illusion is based on seeing everyone as state resident that not a US citizen. Citizens vote for THEIR Representative not for a state delegation.

Kodi: "The logic you employ implies that the Senate could be justifiably abolished and the only legislative arm would be the House of Representatives. The logical conclusion of such is the abolition of states, because they have the potential through state laws to injure equal representation of citizens at the federal level. (Note that this is a realized fact when reviewing the inequality in voting rights of convicted felons in different states.)"

I believe in both that all citizens should have representation in Washington and in checks and balances. But what aspect of a citizen should be represented? I'd like to see the House remain to provide geographical representation and the Senate ideological representation.

Kodi: "That is not a federal form of government. Is that what you are promoting, the abolition of the states in an effort to promote “civic equality?”"

Red herring. There's no reason to abolish states. They are too tied to our national identity. But I DO favor abolishing state suffrage. That would mean eliminating the EC... reforming the Senate.... and the amendment process.

ulTRAX: …..and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs.

Kodi: "Funny that you say that, since that is the affect of the fundamental flexibility of the US Constitution that has allowed this Republic to survive longer than any other in history."

Actually I believe the stronger case is that our stability is due to other causes.... high on that list is the Constitution being virtually reform-proof... and the people being schooled that the Framers were such geniuses we mere mortals should not tinker with perfection. Look in the mirror... you're here presumably because you're on the Left... yet you totally buy into an anti-democratic system that imposes George Bushs on We The People. You are here defending a system that produces morally illegitimate minority government.

Kodi: "But since it does not result in what you want, it’s not working. Interesting syllogism there. It’s the same attitude that the Secessionists held, btw."

ROTF. Try again to make your point.

ulTRAX: I FULLY understand the rationale for the origins of the Constitution. What I do NOT agree with is that citizens should feel they are bound by the politics of 1787. The Framers did what they had to forge a stronger nation. But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away. Soon they were forgotten. That is except for some courageous citizens that knew that slavery had to be opposed... women and people of color deserved the vote etc.... REGARDLESS if the Framers thought differently. Well there's one LAST group of citizens that have been Constitutionally disenfranchised: citizens in large population states. It's time someone advocated for THEIR rights.

Kodi: "It is not 18th century politics that bind us, it is the Constitution; the fundamental law of the country, and that document has meant many things over time."

What binds us is the refusal to question the defects in a system that produces morally illegitimate government.

ulTRAX: “But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away”

Kodi: No doubt they did try, as anyone who has taken the time to read the Federalist Papers and their correspondences would admit. But the Framers compromised each step of the way to get to the document ratified, and reference to having compromised the Declaration of Independence is yet another fishy remark. The two documents did not have the same intentions. Both of us know that. So they did not incorporate all of the same ideas and ideals. Unless you truly want a “Creator/God” written into our Constitution, after all, its in the Declaration of Independence."

True the two documents had different purposes. I only bring up the DoI because it DOES contain the ideals of the times, many of which were compromised away in the Constitution. Much of the nation's history has been to reform the Constitution. It took a civil war to show how the slavery issue had been papered over. It took amendments outlaw slavery, and to grant the vote to slaves and women. But the fight is not over. One of the last group of citizens that have been disfranchised by the Constitution are citizens in large population states who pay the same federal tax rates yet have less representation. The other group are disenfranchised are those citizens who win a popular vote for their presidential candidate yet can have their vote overturned by the anti-democratic EC.

Kodi: "Was slavery bad? Of course it was, slavery and the affect of it, the Great Compromise that allowed black humans to be counted as 3/5’s a person for apportionment is the original sin of this nation. We still suffer from it."

We suffer from more than the effects of slavery.


ulTRAX: "Why is what happened 220 years ago relevant today? Then there were 13 colonies, each who jealously protected their sovereignty and prerogatives. The nation either had a stronger national government or devolved into chaos. The Framer's solutions accomplished what they were supposed to: unified the nation. But this is today. Yet you treat the Constitution... as dysfunctional and anti-democratic as it is... even after a Bush was IMPOSED upon the nation, as if it were handed down on a slab."

Kodi: "Ouch, your hysteria is showing. The states, 220 years later still protect their sovereignty and prerogatives from each other and the federal government. Just watch the Senate on C-SPAN. Each state has its own constitution and many have enshrined in such documents rights that are far above that granted in the US Constitution."

No hysteria here Sport. As I already stated I'm NOT for abolishing states... only state suffrage.

Kodi: No one considers the US Constitution an unassailable divine document. After all there are over two dozen amendments to it, And regardless of your opinion that a strong national government precludes state prerogatives at the federal level, state prerogatives or at the least state concerns at that level are important and they serve to protect its residents."

The amendment argument is comical. Of the 27 amendments... 10 were made by 1791. Most were minor tweaks of the system. A few granted rights to those the Framers saw fit to disenfranchise. NONE of these amendments has reformed the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution.

Kodi: But finally you reveal why you attack the US Constitution, and lo’ and behold, it was because George W Bush won in 2000."

No... I have tried to implement democratic ideals long before 2000. I don't believe Clinton's 92 win was much more legitimate. I use Bush simply as the prime example that SHOULD get Democrats and Progressives to think about the system that is morally illegitimate and works to their detriment.

ulTRAX: "I'm well aware of our system of dual suffrage. I think the concept has to be revisited... ESPECIALLY since it's at the root of why Bush is President today. There is NO escaping this fact that the Constitution has FAILED its job to produce morally legitimate government. "


Kodi: "Well I hate what happened on Dec. 12, 2000 too. I consider it to have been a judicial coup d’etat, but I seriously question the legitimacy of your argument because I bet that had Gore won the Electoral College and not the popular vote you would not now be standing on your soap box screaming about our immoral Electoral College elected Executive branch of government."

The ONLY reason hanging chads, Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad and the USSC were factors is because we did NOT have a popular vote. The problem in 2000 was the EC. Unless we see that... there'll never be any push for REAL reform.

UlTRAX: " RED HERRING ALERT: Have I EVER suggested "pure" or "direct" democracy" Retraction noted as if offered.

"Bahahaha! You make me laugh. You don’t suggest it; you actually proclaim it with each remark about abolishing the Electoral College and a direct election of the presidency."

As you SHOULD know... there's more to government than the Presidency. I AM in favor of representative democracy in the House and Senate. I just tire of the bogus we're a republic not a democracy red herring.

Kodi: "As to your use of the specious logic of employing REYNOLDS v. SIMS as a defense for abolition of the Electoral College:"

No... I only bring it up as a moral argument against vote weighing schemes. And I'm well aware of any caveats concerning the federal government. No need to quote them.

Kodi: "There is to my knowledge in America nowhere a local or county constitution grants rights that supersede those of the state constitution the locality resides. While state constitutions can enumerate rights that are not enumerated by the federal US Constitution, no local government grants rights not recognized by a state constitution."

I'm addressing the MORAL arguments against vote weighing schemes. Please focus.

"Btw: you will find my retraction three inches from your lower intestine with your remark about me not believing in democratic principles. I am army veteran who has put his body on the line for this country. You might reconsider insulting one who willingly was ready to fight and die for your right to be wrong."

Thank you for your selfless service. But in this political debate... you get no brownie points. As for your failure to respect democratic principles... those are YOUR sentiments as expressed here. I am not responsible for your spirited defense of the anti-democratic compromises made in the Constitution. Own up.

[ulTRAX]

32. NEED A NEW THREAD

This topic is going to get lost because it's in a thread about impeachment. I'm starting a new thread... maybe a series about democratic basics. Hope to see you there.... which is not to say won't respond here.

[kodi]

36. <yawn>

In selling the Constitution the theory is that it somehow all balances out. The simple truth is does not. The ripples of an anti-democratic system run deep and have unpredictable consequences. Because the Senate is anti-democratic... it can ratify Clarence Thomas with Senators representing less than 50% of the American People. Thomas becomes a key vote in stopping the Florida Recount. Bush wins in the EC even though some 3 million more people wanted a democratic-left America. Bush uses his powers to secure GOP control of the Senate and House. He may even win reelection. ALL of this is because our system allows some citizens bigger votes at the expense of others. The simple fact is you are incorrect.

Oh lordy. The Constitution does balance things out, but obviously not to your liking. Clearly you don’t like democracy when it is applied to states in relation to each other.

The ripples of an anti-democratic system run deep and have unpredictable consequences.

As does democracy without restraints, which is the purpose of a federal democratic republic.

Because the Senate is anti-democratic... it can ratify Clarence Thomas with Senators representing less than 50% of the American People

They don’t vote? Filibusters are also anti-democratic by your logic, and are exactly what the right wing is preaching.

And arch conservatives Clement Haynsworth and Robert Bork were defeated by minorities representing less than 50% of the people. Zero sum game. Had the popular majority ruled as you want, both would have been on the court, and remember, when Haynsworth was defeated, guess who was nominated and confirmed, …… a hint…… who wrote………Roe v. Wade?

It (consent of the governed ) certainly is a PRIME feature in self-government. But there also has to be a body of law to protect minorities, and I believe a system of checks and balances etc.

Insert the checks and balances of the US constitutional form of government as the shield for minorities being overwhelmed by the majority.

The true test of a democracy is not that the majority rules, but that the minority is tolerated.

Kodi: "Or is it that one person, one equally weighed vote is the legitimizing force?"

SCOTUS seems to believe so. It outlawed such vote weighing scheme on all OTHER levels of government. See Reynolds vs Sims.

And they did not at the federal level vis a vis state’s senatorial voting rights versus those based upon population as voting participants in federalism.

They identified a clear dichotomy between citizens voting equality and states equality under federalism.

I think the low voter turnout in the US is deplorable. But I also see it as logical consequence of a dysfunctional and anti-democratic system

Prove it.

No I do NOT see civic equality where all votes weigh the same as a utopian ideal. It's just a necessary BEDROCK principle in a democratic republic So should be having a system that encourages voter turnout. One way is though proportional representation

We are not a merely democratic republic. We are a federal democratic republic. Like Australia, laws requiring voting can be passed. One does not have to remove the power of states at the federal level.

I'd favor the Senate being converted into a national parliament based on party elections. If the Greens or Libertarians each get 5% of the national vote... they each get 5% of the seats. Currently our system is biased towards geographical voting units... and political minorities can never muster a win in any one unit even though they may make up sizeable minorities nationally

Well you finally offered up something other than objections. But to what national election do you refer that sets the apportionment? Are actual candidates to run, .local and/or national or is it a party and its platform that runs?

Only the Senate is biased towards geographic voting units i.e. the states. The House is based upon population. This is the compromise of federalism.

Our system forces citizens who care enough to vote to often chose the lesser of the evils rather than voting their conscience. Ever wonder why we have a entrenched 2 party system?

Choosing the lesser of two evils is always an act of conscience. Life doesn't afford us the opportunity to remain aloof from the basic moral questions that confront us. And the 2-party system arises primarily from economic concerns, not political ideology. The latter is just a method to achieve the former. Most Americans don’t care about political ideology. They care about material goods and vote towards satisfying those needs.


Congratulations on remembering your 4th grade history.

How quaint. Never one to leave an insult unturned are you?

States suffrage is written into our Constitution but in reality states rights are mostly an illusion. We pretend that California or Wyoming are voting for their senators... when in reality it's just the citizens of each state.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Citizens vote in federal elections, a state’s Senator votes in the Senate. At the level you are talking about the citizens are the states in these federal elections.

It just gives US citizens who chose to live in Wyoming 68X the power in the Senate than citizens in California. It's supposed to even out because of the House but illusion is based on seeing everyone as state resident that not a US citizen. Citizens vote for THEIR Representative not for a state delegation.

It does not; Wyoming and California each have two senators. You are confusing what citizens do versus what Senators do. Comparing the weight of a single voter of a state versus another in a second state is a non-sequiter. It is a meaningless comparison, because each state finally has only two Senators.

And if you don’t think that the members of state delegations work in concert for the benefit of their entire state, you don’t know much about how the House works. The fact that there are state delegations in the house is prima fascia evidence that the House representatives work in concert for the benefit of their state.

.One of the last group of citizens that have been disfranchised by the Constitution are citizens in large population states who pay the same federal tax rates yet have less representation. The other group are disenfranchised are those citizens who win a popular vote for their presidential candidate yet can have their vote overturned by the anti-democratic EC


They do not. They have a Rep in the House and two Senators. Each citizen is represented by the same number of federal legislatures.

The Electoral College is democratic, but it combines the democracy of the citizens and of the states, which in a federal system also have rights to weigh in on matters of who is elected to the presidency. It is the only national office and both the citizens and the states, have a say in it.

As I already stated I'm NOT for abolishing states... only state suffrage.

What then is the purpose of the states if they have no place in the national government and what mechanism is available for federal support to the states with small populations which would be ignored at the national level by popular majorities elsewhere?

Their two seats in the senate is that mechanism.

The amendment argument is comical. Of the 27 amendments... 10 were made by 1791. Most were minor tweaks of the system. A few granted rights to those the Framers saw fit to disenfranchise. NONE of these amendments has reformed the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution.

AW, COME ON MAN, READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

That was in 1913.

Thank you for your selfless service. But in this political debate... you get no brownie points. As for your failure to respect democratic principles... those are YOUR sentiments as expressed here.

You are welcome, but to paraphrase your snide remarks:

You get no brownie points when you are arguing against a document you have failed to read and comprehend.

[ulTRAX]

39. the framers are dead... it's OUR nation now.

ulTRAX: "In selling the Constitution the theory is that it somehow all balances out. The simple truth is does not. The ripples of an anti-democratic system run deep and have unpredictable consequences. Because the Senate is anti-democratic... it can ratify Clarence Thomas with Senators representing less than 50% of the American People. Thomas becomes a key vote in stopping the Florida Recount. Bush wins in the EC even though some 3 million more people wanted a democratic-left America. Bush uses his powers to secure GOP control of the Senate and House. He may even win reelection. ALL of this is because our system allows some citizens bigger votes at the expense of others. The simple fact is you are incorrect.

Kodi: "Oh lordy. The Constitution does balance things out, but obviously not to your liking. Clearly you don’t like democracy when it is applied to states in relation to each other."

Saying so doesn't make it true. I heard that saying somewhere. Even if a case can be made that things balanced out in 1787... which I would not agree with... demographics have made the state-based formula more anti-democratic. Where once about 7-8% of the US population held a theoretical check on amendments... it's now about 4%. As for the Senate... when there were 14 states... the smallest 7 had 23% of the population... now it's down to 15%... heading to 10%. As for your claim that the US federal system merely allows for democracy amongst states... that's laughable. By you logic if China and Taiwan ever formed a federation... they would be equals.

ulTRAX: "The ripples of an anti-democratic system run deep and have unpredictable consequences."

Kodi: "As does democracy without restraints, which is the purpose of a federal democratic republic."

RED HERRING ALERT. Back to your old strawman? What next... that I have proposed something akin to mob rule? What I HAVE in fact said... is that rights of minorities are BEST protected by the Bill of Rights approach... NOT by granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others. But then you claim to believe in democratic principles. So you should have figured this out on your own.

ulTRAX: "Because the Senate is anti-democratic... it can ratify Clarence Thomas with Senators representing less than 50% of the American People "

Kodi: "They don’t vote?

Uh? Who?

Kodi: "Filibusters are also anti-democratic by your logic, and are exactly what the right wing is preaching."

I have problems with many of the House and Senate rules. Another topic. My point was already made.

Kodi: "And arch conservatives Clement Haynsworth and Robert Bork were defeated by minorities representing less than 50% of the people."

Cite. And if true... it's true. So be it. I also have no problem with Reagan's election even though I detested him.

ulTRAX: It "...(consent of the governed ) certainly is a PRIME feature in self-government. But there also has to be a body of law to protect minorities, and I believe a system of checks and balances etc. "

Kodi: "Insert the checks and balances of the US constitutional form of government as the shield for minorities being overwhelmed by the majority."

Addressed above. There's no moral justification for ANY group to be given a bigger vote than others. Where does it stop? Oh... that's right... with what the Framers decided... Right? Yup... they were very adept at protecting the rights of those invited to attend the Constitutional Convention. No others need apply for the right to have a bigger vote.

Kodi: "The true test of a democracy is not that the majority rules, but that the minority is tolerated."

That may be ONE test... what about NOT permitting minority rule? For the record, I have NEVER said I am against protecting legitimate minority rights. I am against perpetuating the way the Framers devised. In the current arrangement the small states can STILL be outvoted. Their rights would BETTER be protected though the guaranteeing of rights... or allowing rural states to always head agriculture committees etc. Where your system breaks down is the in the area of permitting minority rule.... and there's NO protections for the majority against their expansion into other areas besides areas of their legitimate concern. In 2000 the majority voted AGAINST Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, Son of Star Wars... etc... yet they got it anyways because once elected there's little to restrain raw political power of the office.

ulTRAX: "SCOTUS seems to believe so. It outlawed such vote weighing scheme on all OTHER levels of government. See Reynolds vs Sims."

Kodi: "And they did not at the federal level vis a vis state’s senatorial voting rights versus those based upon population as voting participants in federalism.
They identified a clear dichotomy between citizens voting equality and states equality under federalism."

I've already addressed this. SCOTUS has no alternative but to respect the Constitution as written. I only raised their MORAL argument against vote weighing schemes.

ulTRAX: "I think the low voter turnout in the US is deplorable. But I also see it as logical consequence of a dysfunctional and anti-democratic system

Kodi: Prove it.

Prove what? That voter turnout is low in the US or it's low as consequence of our dysfunctional and anti-democratic system?

As for the first... we have not broken 60% voter turnout since 1968. Source http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm compare that some of the other advanced industrial democracies such as the UK or France. Between 1945 and now... France has NEVER had voter turnout less than 60%. As for the effects of our system on voting participation here's an intro into the unintended consequences of our voting system http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/why_are_voting_systems_important.htm One of those consequences is that third parties common in democracies that try to IMPROVE their systems, never take root here. According to the book How Democratic is the American Constitution, author Robert Dahl maintains that a two party system is a natural consequence of our first past the post election system. Political minorities simply can't muster a victory when all elections are based on set districts or states... even though they make up a sizable minority nationally.

ulTRAX: "No I do NOT see civic equality where all votes weigh the same as a utopian ideal. It's just a necessary BEDROCK principle in a democratic republic So should be having a system that encourages voter turnout. One way is though proportional representation"

Kodi: "We are not a merely democratic republic. We are a federal democratic republic. Like Australia, laws requiring voting can be passed. One does not have to remove the power of states at the federal level."

Look it, Einstein. I know damn well what sort of system we have. What you seem incapable of comprehending is that someone might think it's time to RETHINK a government that was designed in 1787.... that this system has set in cement the politics of that era... and it's time to move on to make the system more democratic... ESPECIALLY since it can not guarantee morally legitimate government. It's OUR nation now. Enough with placing the will of the dead over that of the living.

To be continued.

[kodi]

41. once more into the breach

Kodi: "Oh lordy. The Constitution does balance things out, but obviously not to your liking. Clearly you don’t like democracy when it is applied to states in relation to each other."

Saying so doesn't make it true. I heard that saying somewhere. Even if a case can be made that things balanced out in 1787... which I would not agree with... demographics have made the state-based formula more anti-democratic. Where once about 7-8% of the US population held a theoretical check on amendments... it's now about 4%. As for the Senate... when there were 14 states... the smallest 7 had 23% of the population... now it's down to 15%... heading to 10%. As for your claim that the US federal system merely allows for democracy amongst states... that's laughable. By you logic if China and Taiwan ever formed a federation... they would be equals.


Blah blah blah…..You are referring to populations when the reference is the intra state equality of the components of a federalist democratic republic. You insist on mixing population percentages with states when each has its place in federalism.

Talk about red herrings: what the hell has China and Taiwan to do with federalism? The claim is on equal partners that compose a federation, because they are equivalent entities, not that they have equal populations and even there the example of the US legislative branch includes representation based on population.

Kodi: "As does democracy without restraints, which is the purpose of a federal democratic republic."

RED HERRING ALERT. Back to your old strawman? What next... that I have proposed something akin to mob rule? What I HAVE in fact said... is that rights of minorities are BEST protected by the Bill of Rights approach... NOT by granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others. But then you claim to believe in democratic principles. So you should have figured this out on your own.

It appears it is you who are throwing the smelly fish. No one is “granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others” in a federal democratic republic. They don’t have more Representatives or Senators, They are represented by the identical number of them. It is those legislative officers who make the decisions. So how do some citizens have more power? It’s not the citizens making the decisions in the legislature.

Stating that citizens of small states have more power is inaccurate. They don’t. They are not represented by more legislators. Your continually specious argument that their power is magnified is the red herring here.

All citizens have an equal number of representatives in the legislative branch of the federal government. No one is less represented at the level of the legislative branch in this form of government. No one is less represented than any one else.

Republics are not democracies. They have constitutions that are the fundamental law and protect minority rights from the vicissitudes of majority rule, and yes there are times majority rule certainly has devolved to mob rule. And its possibility is only tempered by the checks and balances that constitutional protections afford to minorities.


There's no moral justification for ANY group to be given a bigger vote than others. Where does it stop? Oh... that's right... with what the Framers decided... Right? Yup... they were very adept at protecting the rights of those invited to attend the Constitutional Convention. No others need apply for the right to have a bigger vote.

No one is being given a bigger vote. There is no fundamental inequality. All citizens have a right to vote for an equal number (3) of representatives in the legislative branch, regardless of the state they reside.

Your other remarks are tangential to this topic. They serve no purpose to clarify. If you have a problem with men dead 200 years, get over it. They are not the issue here. You have repeatedly demanded that because one vote out of a million is 0.0001% of those cast, it means less than one vote out of 500,000. That is just not correct. The voter in each case has the same opportunity to be served by the same number of representatives. Your dwelling on the percentage of “power” each voter holds in an election is meaningless, because they have the same number of representatives to express their desires at the legislative level.


Kodi: Prove it.

Prove what? That voter turnout is low in the US or it's low as consequence of our dysfunctional and anti-democratic system?

As for the first... we have not broken 60% voter turnout since 1968. Source http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm compare that some of the other advanced industrial democracies such as the UK or France. Between 1945 and now... France has NEVER had voter turnout less than 60%. As for the effects of our system on voting participation here's an intro into the unintended consequences of our voting system http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/why_are_vot... One of those consequences is that third parties common in democracies that try to IMPROVE their systems, never take root here. According to the book How Democratic is the American Constitution, author Robert Dahl maintains that a two party system is a natural consequence of our first past the post election system. Political minorities simply can't muster a victory when all elections are based on set districts or states... even though they make up a sizable minority nationally.


Yes, the latter. And there is much more to lower voter turn out in the US than that the US is not a parliamentarian form of government like the UK and France, or that low voter turn-out is a result of disenfranchisement due to elections based upon districts or states.

Both the UK and France also vote by districts in their parliamentary elections. The same “Political minorities (that) simply can't muster a victory” in the US also can not muster victory in the UK or France.

Gracious and just where did the Republican Party come from? They were initially a third party. And in the US, third parties are the incubators for fringe ideas that eventually find their way into one or both of the two major parties. You cant have it both ways by demanding the fundamental feature of the democratic process, viz., majorities rule and decry that “Political minorities simply can't muster a victory”

Of course they can’t, they are minorities. But to say that citizens of these parties are shut out of affecting the political process is evidently not true. They do and have had impact on the process.

Look it, Einstein. I know damn well what sort of system we have. What you seem incapable of comprehending is that someone might think it's time to RETHINK a government that was designed in 1787.... that this system has set in cement the politics of that era... and it's time to move on to make the system more democratic... ESPECIALLY since it can not guarantee morally legitimate government. It's OUR nation now. Enough with placing the will of the dead over that of the living.

Wow, are you capable of discourse without relying on insults?

You stated that you knew the type of government we live under, even having boasted that we have never had a change in our Constitution that lead to more democracy. When I showed your remark to be utterly false, you attack me personally? What the heck is that supposed to prove?

Your last remarks allude to a position I do not hold, viz., a literal, original intent philosophy of the Constitution. If that is not a straw man argument against my position I do not know what is.

I am completely capable of having an intelligent discussion with anyone, even you, if you act civilly and readily comprehend that changes in the present system are to be examined to improve upon it. I have toiled with third party political activism for more than a decade with the Natural Law Party and understand well the stranglehold the current system has on election politics. Yet I have patiently engaged you over several posts while repeatedly you have attacked me personally as one whom, because I do not buy what you are selling vis a vis your pet theory of the anathema of “weighted” voting is accused of being anti-democratic. I do not believe that what you are selling is accurate either from a historical perspective, a philosophical perspective of representative democracy and human nature, nor that you have articulated a reasonable alternative to the present system that I feel will work in this country at this time.

Ciao baby, its time to play with my doggies.

[ulTRAX]

42. I think this discussion has about run its course

Kodi: "Oh lordy. The Constitution does balance things out, but obviously not to your liking. Clearly you don’t like democracy when it is applied to states in relation to each other."

ulTRAX: "Saying so doesn't make it true. I heard that saying somewhere. Even if a case can be made that things balanced out in 1787... which I would not agree with... demographics have made the state-based formula more anti-democratic. Where once about 7-8% of the US population held a theoretical check on amendments... it's now about 4%. As for the Senate... when there were 14 states... the smallest 7 had 23% of the population... now it's down to 15%... heading to 10%. As for your claim that the US federal system merely allows for democracy amongst states... that's laughable. By you logic if China and Taiwan ever formed a federation... they would be equals.


Kodi: Blah blah blah…..You are referring to populations when the reference is the intra state equality of the components of a federalist democratic republic. You insist on mixing population percentages with states when each has its place in federalism.

ulTRAX: Get a clue... I believe that federalism may have been a necessary step in forging a nation of 13 colonies... but unlike you I'm not locked in the politics of 1787. An unintended consequence of the Constitution has been to set those politics in cement. Even 220 years later the BEST you can do is use as your base reference "what the Framers intended" as if their solutions were handed down on a slab to be forever revered and never questioned. Even after election 2000 you can't see that some of the compromises of 1787 are NOT serving this nation well.

Kodi: "Talk about red herrings: what the hell has China and Taiwan to do with federalism? The claim is on equal partners that compose a federation, because they are equivalent entities, not that they have equal populations and even there the example of the US legislative branch includes representation based on population."

Gee... you say it's a red herring then just return to the logic that led to my example: that the federalism was merely democracy between equal states. So would a federation of China and Taiwan. My point is merely that states are NOT equals by any common sense understanding. They are only equal of one accepts the tenets of federalism. Having problems with internal contradictions Kodi? By your logic it's perfectly permissible for cities and towns to have their own chamber in state government so there would be a democracy of municipal entities.... because somehow it would balance out with the house of the people.

Kodi: "As does democracy without restraints, which is the purpose of a federal democratic republic."

RED HERRING ALERT. Back to your old strawman? What next... that I have proposed something akin to mob rule? What I HAVE in fact said... is that rights of minorities are BEST protected by the Bill of Rights approach... NOT by granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others. But then you claim to believe in democratic principles. So you should have figured this out on your own.

Kodi: "It appears it is you who are throwing the smelly fish. No one is “granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others” in a federal democratic republic."

ROTF... Of COURSE some citizens have more power than others. You admitted so... though you believe it balances out. Which leaves you to explain how there was any balancing in Election 2000 when it's clear the election losers can WIN in our system even after being repudiated by the People.

Kodi: "They don’t have more Representatives or Senators, They are represented by the identical number of them. It is those legislative officers who make the decisions. So how do some citizens have more power? It’s not the citizens making the decisions in the legislature."

Yawn. We've been though this. How much power a citizen has is NOT dependent on YOUR formula which glosses over the truth ... but how many citizens a legislature represents. Yet it's clear that if 15% of the population gets 50% of the Senate seats... then there is NO equality you claim... though why do I suspect you're be making the same false claim forever. Your ONLY defense is to pretend there should be equality, hence democracy, between states. But since states are merely the people within... it's simply a vote weighing scheme you're trying to excuse. Lame.

Kodi: "Stating that citizens of small states have more power is inaccurate. They don’t. They are not represented by more legislators. Your continually specious argument that their power is magnified is the red herring here.:

What I'm saying is citizens in smalls states have power in excess of their numbers because the Senate and EC were DESIGNED to do so. You know that...

Kodi: "Republics are not democracies. They have constitutions that are the fundamental law and protect minority rights from the vicissitudes of majority rule, and yes there are times majority rule certainly has devolved to mob rule. And its possibility is only tempered by the checks and balances that constitutional protections afford to minorities. "

RED HERRING ALERT!!! Thank you for finally bringing up the infamous red herring that never dies. First of all I have NEVER advocated we not have a republic. But there's not REQUIREMENT that republics be anti-democratic. The simple truth is democratic principle underlie republics. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22... a fundamental maxim of republic government is that the will of the MAJORITY shall prevail.

ulTRAX: "There's no moral justification for ANY group to be given a bigger vote than others. Where does it stop? Oh... that's right... with what the Framers decided... Right? Yup... they were very adept at protecting the rights of those invited to attend the Constitutional Convention. No others need apply for the right to have a bigger vote."

Kodi: "No one is being given a bigger vote. There is no fundamental inequality. All citizens have a right to vote for an equal number (3) of representatives in the legislative branch, regardless of the state they reside."

YawnX2 Your deliberate distortion of reality has been exposed above.


Kodi: "Your other remarks are tangential to this topic. They serve no purpose to clarify. If you have a problem with men dead 200 years, get over it. They are not the issue here."

Sorry Kodi... when someone like you can only parrot the logic of 1787 then it's clear that you place THEIR concerns over ours. As long as that happens you're dealing with the Constitution as a document handed down on a slab, and will forever resist the common sense idea that citizens have not just the right but the DUTY to insure that government works for them.

Kodi: "You have repeatedly demanded that because one vote out of a million is 0.0001% of those cast, it means less than one vote out of 500,000. That is just not correct. The voter in each case has the same opportunity to be served by the same number of representatives. Your dwelling on the percentage of “power” each voter holds in an election is meaningless, because they have the same number of representatives to express their desires at the legislative level."

Your lack of comprehension in this area is mind-boggling. You still haven't dealt with election 2000 yet... have you? Oh... I bet you're one of those people that blames Florida or SCOTUS rather than the EC. See above.

ulTRAX: Prove what? That voter turnout is low in the US or it's low as consequence of our dysfunctional and anti-democratic system?
As for the first... we have not broken 60% voter turnout since 1968. Source http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm compare that some of the other advanced industrial democracies such as the UK or France. Between 1945 and now... France has NEVER had voter turnout less than 60%. As for the effects of our system on voting participation here's an intro into the unintended consequences of our voting system http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/why_are_vot ... One of those consequences is that third parties common in democracies that try to IMPROVE their systems, never take root here. According to the book How Democratic is the American Constitution, author Robert Dahl maintains that a two party system is a natural consequence of our first past the post election system. Political minorities simply can't muster a victory when all elections are based on set districts or states... even though they make up a sizable minority nationally.

Kodi: "Yes, the latter. And there is much more to lower voter turn out in the US than that the US is not a parliamentarian form of government like the UK and France, or that low voter turn-out is a result of disenfranchisement due to elections based upon districts or states, Both the UK and France also vote by districts in their parliamentary elections. The same “Political minorities (that) simply can't muster a victory” in the US also can not muster victory in the UK or France."

It's clear that the situation is more complex than we both portray. In the UK there is a high degree of class consciousness which drives politics. In France there is a two round election process. Both are absent in the US. My choice of nations was a poor one. None the less my point remains that nations that TRY to better gage the consent of the governed have high voter turnouts. Again returning to the book :How Democratic is the American Constitution" Robert Dahl, citing 1990 study from American Political Science Review, states that there's a direct correlation between voting systems and voter satisfaction. There's a higher degree of voter DISsatisfaction in majoritarian nations than in nations which have a more consensual system. Why? Because in majoritarian nations a large number of the population will always be unrepresented. In consensual systems... even if you party comes in 3ed or 4th you're still represented. In that study of 11 European democracies the Netherlands had the most consensual system (proportional representation) and one of the highest satisfaction rates, and higher percentages of registered voters AND high voter turnouts than the UK or France. The US is, of course, at the bottom among these advanced democracies.


Kodi" "Gracious and just where did the Republican Party come from? They were initially a third party. And in the US, third parties are the incubators for fringe ideas that eventually find their way into one or both of the two major parties. You cant have it both ways by demanding the fundamental feature of the democratic process, viz., majorities rule and decry that “Political minorities simply can't muster a victory”

Golly gee... so we have had ONE third party emerge in 220 years. I guess all our problems are solved. Of course the emergence of the GOP was based in an issue that split the nation and led to the civil war. You're hardly making your point. As you grasp for straws you ignore all the FAILED third party efforts and focus on the one exceptional one. Again... lame.

Kodi: "Of course they can’t, they are minorities. But to say that citizens of these parties are shut out of affecting the political process is evidently not true. They do and have had impact on the process."

Possibly having an "impact" is not the same as having the right to vote one's conscience and have a good chance of being represented. A central feature of our election system is that about 40-49% of the voters will NOT be represented at any given time. Some NEVER get any representation because their vote has been Gerrymandered into oblivion or they are loyal to 3ed parties.

ulTRAX: "Look it, Einstein. I know damn well what sort of system we have. What you seem incapable of comprehending is that someone might think it's time to RETHINK a government that was designed in 1787.... that this system has set in cement the politics of that era... and it's time to move on to make the system more democratic... ESPECIALLY since it can not guarantee morally legitimate government. It's OUR nation now. Enough with placing the will of the dead over that of the living."

Kodi: "Wow, are you capable of discourse without relying on insults?"

What's TRULY insulting is YOUR insistence that anyone who dare disagree with what you consider some self-evident truth from 220 years ago must, by definition, be in error. So you repeat ad nauseam the rationale for the Constitution as if I don't understand it. You're treating this as a religious matter not a political matter.

Kodi: "You stated that you knew the type of government we live under, even having boasted that we have never had a change in our Constitution that lead to more democracy. When I showed your remark to be utterly false, you attack me personally? What the heck is that supposed to prove?"

What I have said is that the amendments you tout as some proof that the Constitution is not reform proof FAILED to make your case.

Kodi: "Your last remarks allude to a position I do not hold, viz., a literal, original intent philosophy of the Constitution. If that is not a straw man argument against my position I do not know what is."

I have no idea what remark you're referring to. I, at least, have been trying to include both sides of the conversation to avoid confusion. But it's clear you have not offered any criticisms of the Constitution and have only defended original intent.

Kodi: "I am completely capable of having an intelligent discussion with anyone, even you, if you act civilly and readily comprehend that changes in the present system are to be examined to improve upon it."

You can claim whatever you want. It's been clear from the start that the BEST you can do is parrot the politics of 1787 and if anyone dare rejects it... you just repeat it as if it's some self-evident truth I must be too thick to understand. You even had the gall to suggest that if I don't agree with you it's because I haven't read the Constitution... as if I hadn't had my fill as a PoliSci undergrad or debated this topic for years. It's clear that if I, as others have in the past have done, simply do not revere the will of the Framers as you do, you consider it a heretical thought-crime.

Ya... I think this discussion has about run its course.

[mouse7]

16. All of them. Multiple-count inditements are much tougher to beat.

From the 2000 election, to fraudulently pursuing a war in Iraq, to (at the very least) gross incompetence and criminal indifference to the death of thousands on 9/11.

Make reading the inditement alone take up two weeks straight of network coverage.

[maggrwaggr]

18. piece o'cake. Lying to congress is a felony

and we all know he lied to congress.

It's a no brainer

[ulTRAX]

20. not to be a nitpicker

Let's be a bit more rigorous here.

If Bush is going to be accused of an actual CRIME... you at least have to demonstrate what Bush said, when he said it, and why he knew it was not true.

Unless you can do so... all you're left with is a suspicion Bush lied.

[historian]

23. he has recanted and backpedalled on almost everything

[ulTRAX]

24. I, too, distrust Bush...

I, too, distrust Bush. I don't believe a word he says. I personally believe he's a war criminal. But unless some specifics can be pinned down... then next week... two months.... 8 months from now we'll still be going around in circles. Can we pin him down on specific "high crimes or misdemeanors" and make a credible case or not? With all due respect I hope you don't believe "he has recanted and backpedalled on almost everything" constitutes a legal case.

[PaDUer]

37. Are you or do you...

think you're an attorney?

[symbolman]

26. Bush is IMPEACHABLE because He's UNDER OATH.

Wrote this about a year ago at the TBTM site, a Lawyer added to it.


Bush is IMPEACHABLE because He's UNDER OATH.
TBTM Commentary by a Symbolman

for clickable links within this diatribe go to:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/howtoimpeach.html

While cruising one of my favorite, up to date and insightful websites I came across an interesting exchange. The thread was about the "Retraction" made by the White House over the bald faced lie to both Congress and the American people that helped to launch thousands of deaths in Iraq. Specifically the Niger Forgeries Bush presented as fact tho many knew then and it's coming out that HE knew as well they were faked.

So he lied. Knowingly.

Here's the exchange I read today that I think is VERY Useful:

*************************************************

Making statements about sexual affairs in sleazeball investigations is not a duty of the President. Yet, when President Clinton lied about a sexual affair, he was impeached
.
On the other hand, the State of the Union IS a presidential duty. In fact, it says so in the Constitution
:
Article 2, Section 3
Duties of the President
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union...

Bush blatantly lied while performing this duty.

So now we'll see...is lying to Paula Jones' attorneys an impeachable offense, but lying to Congress and the American people, while performing one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president, in order to build support for a war on false pretenses is NOT an impeachable offense?

But he wasn't under oath...

unless you count the "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..." part of the swearing in ceremony...)

Yes, he was under oath

As you noted, it was the Oath of Office.

If it had been any OTHER speech, perhaps you'd have a point, but the State of the Union is an officially assigned constitutional duty of the President. Given that fact, I'd say it has as much weight as any affidavit or sworn testimony.

They issue the retraction like "it was only the state of the union address, not something important..." when this address is one of the few MANDATED duties of the office that is specifically laid out in the constitution!

*********************************************

We're not lawyers but this sure looks like a reasonable legal rationale for IMPEACHMENT.

While we're at it CHENEY made pretty much the same OATH.

Now, remember that there's a whole lot of WAR PROFITEERING, Nepotism and Shady Business deals involved - a big shot here for any Actual Journalist to get a Pulitzer or better.

Let's hear from some legal scholars on this. Remember what the Drumbeat was by the right wing during their Impeachment of President Clinton?

"It's not about the Sex, it's about the LYING."

Well, then - Let's Update that mantra and use it. "It's not about the WAR - It's about the LYING."

In the Meantime write/call/email your Congressman or Senator and/or any Media outlet you can and tell them that BUSH LIED UNDER OATH.

He did. He swore an OATH and LIED to CONGRESS During an OFFICIAL DUTY.

It's just that simple. Pass the Word.

UPDATE: A LAWYER BRINGS MEAT TO THE TABLE:

The Case for Impeachment

The wheels are really coming off Bush & Co.'s case for the Iraqi war. In particular, little reasonable doubt can remain that Mr. Bush did not know the following statement, made during his 2003 State of the Union Address, was a lie:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

The administration claims that the statement was not a lie, because it was "technically" correct. In other words, the statement supposedly gave a truthful accounting of the British position. The administration's hyper-technical approach to lying is still lying: The American intelligence community, along with the White House, had long known the information was false. As such, Mr. Bush could not truthfully maintain the British had "learned" information he knew was false -- particularly in light of the fact that he intended to mislead Congress into believing the information.

Did Mr. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he knowingly used false information to convince Congress and the American people to support a war with Iraq"

The President can be removed only upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment and trial can rest only on "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4.)

Since Mr. Bush seems to have lied to Congress, then he apparently violated at least two federal statutes. Each violation is a felony, a "High Crime" punishable by impeachment.

18 USC section 1001 provides that in matters within federal jurisdiction, any person who "knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

In matters involving Congress, the statute applies to any "document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch . . . ."

The State of the Union address is "a document required by law . . .to be submitted to the Congress." Article II, Section III of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President . . . shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

If Mr. Bush lied in his State of the Union address to convince Congress to support him in war, he may have violated 18 USC 1001 several ways. For instance, lying about non-existent uranium purchases would falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact " that the purchase never occurred. Lying also obviously violates section 2 of the statute: "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation". Knowing reliance upon the forged documents would violate section 3 of the statute: "uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry".

Lies contained in the State of the Union address would also violate the federal anti-conspiracy statute, because the lie would come about through the efforts of many people. That statute, 18 USC section 371, criminalizes acts by two or more people who conspire "either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy. . . ." Violations of the federal anti-conspiracy statute are punishable by a fine and imprisonment not to exceed 5 years.

A strong legal case for impeachment exists. However, impeachment is only quasi-legal. Impeachment is really a political act. Therefore, the question arises whether these kinds of crimes " the result of lying " should be the basis for presidential impeachment. Given Republican control of Congress, Republican beliefs regarding presidential lying are of real import.

Here is what several Republicans said to Congress in the context of Mr. Clinton"s impeachment:

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) , on Friday, said in Congress on December 11, 1998:

"When asked to name the single most important gift America had given the world, Daniel Webster replied, "The integrity of George Washington." How many of us have wondered, as a child, holding a shiny new quarter in our hand, why the profile of George Washington adorns more coin and paper money than any other national figure's Integrity. . . .

"While reverence for parallels with the Nixon impeachment is seductive but inappropriate, there are some points worth noting. In the Nixon case, for example, lying to Congress and to the American people in just such a manner, provoked a separate article of impeachment. Is the danger of such an attack on our constitutional processes any less dangerous today?"

Mr. Barr continued:
"You know, as children, all of us believed certain things with all of our hearts. We knew there was a difference between good and evil.

"We knew it was wrong to lie, and equally important, that if we got caught, we would be punished. We knew that honesty and fairness were as much a part of why we respected our parents, pastors, and teachers, as we assuredly knew they were part of why we pledged allegiance to our flag.

"What happened to these simple things that we all knew in our hearts just a few short years ago? Why do so many adults now find it so hard to call a lie a lie, when as parents, teachers, and employers, we have no such hesitancy? Why do so many now resist the search for the truth and accountability, when we do so day in and day out, in our lives at home, in business, in school, and in our religious institutions?"

Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), said in Congress on December 10, 1998:

"A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.

"In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.

"The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power. Alexander Hamilton himself acknowledged that those who set examples which undermine or subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery. That is what William Jefferson Clinton has done. There must be a constitutional remedy."

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said to Congress on December 11, 1998:

"Should he be impeached" Very quickly; the hardest decision I think I will ever make. Learning that the president lied to the grand jury about sex, I still believe that every president of the United States, regardless of the matter they called to testify about before a grand jury should testify truthfully and if they don't they should be subject to losing their job.

"I believe that about Bill Clinton and I'll believe that about the next president. If it had been a Republican, I would have still believed that and I would hope that if a Republican person had done all this that some of us would've went (sic) over and told him, You need to leave office. I understand that the dilemma that all of us are in about that. His fate is in his own hands."

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said to Congress on December 11, 1998:

"This vote says something about us. It answers the question, just who are we, and what do we stand for" Is the president one of us, or is he a sovereign? We vote for our honor, which is the only thing we get to take with us to the grave."

Each of these Republican Congressmen were arguing for Mr. Clinton"s removal from office for purportedly committing perjury in a sexual harassment case. However, the federal court had ruled that Mr. Clinton's testimony regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not material to that case. In other words, these Congressmen strongly believed that lying under oath to immaterial matters were a proper basis for removing the Chief Executive " and the House of Representatives agreed. If Republicans believe Mr. Clinton's purported misdeeds were the stuff of impeachment and removal from office, then what of Mr. Bush's lies?

Rather than lying about immaterial matters, Mr. Bush lied about the most important matters imaginable, whether to send Americans to their deaths while killing citizens of another country. If Mr. Clinton should have been removed from office for his purported lies, then Mr. Bush " if he really did lie " should be removed from office and subsequently prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Copyright © Frank Bloksberg 2003, All Rights Reserved

[ulTRAX]

34. great article.... thanks n/m

[PaDUer]

38. Thanks Symbolman...

you're always organized and ready w/ the facts :-)

[chelsea0011]

28. Lying about WMD and links to Bin Laden to justify an invasion

Thousands killed

[Cleita]

29. Considering that our Congress seems to believe that lying about

getting a blow job is an impeachable offense, maybe we need to recruit Monica to do her patriotic duty and provide Congress with an offense to impeach this President.

I guess lying to get us into a pre-emptive attack war and lying about the cost of the prescription drug benefit, not too mention many other impeachable offenses are enough for this pink tutu Congress. But maybe another Presidential blow job could do it.

[GumboYaYa]

31. The Bush adminsitration is actively promoting the idea that

Bush never said that Iraq was an imminent threat. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (of which the US is a signatory) requires that there be an imminent threat before acountry can invade another country. By his own admission, the invasion of Iraq by Bush violated international law. This should be a "high crime" in my book.

While it may not be the best theory, it is at least novel and unique.

Bush should be impeached and tried as a war criminal. Defeating him in an election is too easy of a way out for him.

[gulliver]

35. The sixteen words in the 2003 State of the Union.

If Bush knew that his claim about African uranium was dubious and insisted that it be included (with weasel wording about the British), then Bush committed a high crime. A president doesn't try to force a war with slanted information. That can't be tolerated. It is the very thing for which impeachment was intended.

[Dr Fate]

40. How bout we put our dicks up just boot the guy out of office???

The mental masterbation on this board gets less and less amusing...

There will be NO impeachment. Not gonna happen.

After 2004 Bush will either be out of office or more powerful than ever...