A question I've been asking that no one supporting not impeaching

[rateyes]

Cheney and Bush have failed to answer:

How can any Representative in Congress uphold his/her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and NOT seek impeachment of an executive who continually commits crimes against the Constitution?

It's no different, in my estimation, than a governor freeing a rapist/murderer, only to have him rape and murder again.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. We've answered it many, many times

Since the constitution itself does not make impeachment obligatory, an Oath to defend the constitution doesn't make impeachment obligatory.

Impeachment is entirely a political process, not a legal one.

[tom_paine]

6. Good God, Monkey. That's the kind of nonsense that destroys great nations.

Guess you wouldn't have been in on the Boston Tea Party. After all, those crazy liberal radicals were nuts to think they should step outside of the system to air their grievances. I mean, forming their own nation wasn't politically feasible at the time, was it. They just should have waited quietly until it became politically feasible, right?

Plus, and this is so very apt, Hitler should never have been resisted or impeached because it was politically impossible, at least up until he banned the other parties in '34. After that it was REALLY unfeasible, so the German People did right, didn't they?

I'm sorry, but yours is quite a nauseatingly, disgracefully unAmerican view.

Does this mean if a local Sheriff's Department is protecting a rapist because he is wealthy, the victim shouldn't seek redress because to hope for a prosecution let alone a conviction is unreasonable? They should just sit down and shut up and wait until prosecuting the wealthy rapist becomes feasible, maybe after the old sheriff is voted out. And if the new sheriff is likethe old sheriff, part of the Club, then she should keep waiting until things change, eh?

Ever read the Founding Fathers? I have. Extensively. And I feel certain that they would be five times as contemptuous and hateful of your sentiment as I am. I am actively restraining myself from cursing you further, as I have no doubt they would.

What a disgraceful and odious and unAmerican viewpoint. If you feel that way about the Rule of Law, perhaps you would be more comfortable in Communist China, where your attitudes are not just held by Bushies and most Congressional Democrats but by almost all the beaten-down people there.

You took my breath away with THAT little piece of wisdom, Monkey, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. If the vast majority of Imperial Subjects didn't believe what you do or worse, then we wouldn't be where we are today, would we?

:puke:

Sorry to be so harsh, but goddamn!

:puke:

You need to sit your ass down and read some Founding Fathers, especially Paine, Jefferson and Madison.

[TahitiNut]

13. Amen. (It's Ayn Rand all over again.)

:eyes:

[rateyes]

16. Thank you for a great response. nt

[leftofthedial]

19. bingo

[madokie]

38. Peace to you for putting this so plain as to be easily understood

[onenote]

39. Nice rant. But your rant doesn't re-write the Constitution.

There is no constitutional mandate to commence or complete impeachment proceedings. If you think that's the case, I'd love to hear an explanation of how this mandate is supposed to be enforced.
In particular, what court has jurisdiction? Who has standing to bring the suit. Who would be the defendants -- every member of Congress? Congress as an institution? What would be the relief that a court would order? Mandating that every member of COngress support the initiation of an impeachment inquiry? Telling members of Congress how to vote? If the process starts and the House is about to vote not to impeach, does some court have jurisdiction to tell members of Congress that they have to impeach?

The Constitution is unequivocally clear: the House shall have the sole power of impeachment. No other branch of government has a say in the process and thus it is left to the unfettered discretion of each member of the House and to the House as a whole to decide whether or not to launch impeachment proceedings.

[rateyes]

41. And, your explanation doesn't answer the question:

How can one PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution, and keep allowing an executive to break its provisions with impunity?

[onenote]

50. The Constitution, in its wisdom, leaves that to each member to decide for him/herself

You show me how the supposed constituional duty to impeach is enforced and we can have a discussion. But it appears that you are essentially claiming that the framers intended for members of Congress to have a "duty" to commence impeachment proceedings, but provided no way for "violations" of this constitutional duty to be enforced (other than through the electoral process, which of course, cannot directly enforce the duty since even if the members that didn't move on impeachment are voted out of office, there is nothing that anyone can do to force their replacements to act differently.

[rateyes]

55. I asked you first...

I'm asking how can they protect the constituion and continue to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the constitution with impunity?

I don't think they can. Obviously, they do believe they can. I want to know the basis for their belief.

Their oath, required by the Constitution, in turn requires them to protect and defend the Constitution. They cannot do that, IMO, and continue to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution with impunity. THAT'S where impeachment becomes a Constitutional duty.

If they can protect and defend the Constitution while at the same time allowing an executive to commit high crimes against it with impunity (which they obviously believe they can), I want to know their reasoning.

I don't see it.

[onenote]

63. the answer is that they can do it with impunity if the voters allow them to

The only check on them is that they can be voted out of office and even that is an imperfect check since there is no way to force their replacements to act any differently.

There. I've answered your questions. Now its your turn. How do you think this "obligation" can be enforced beyond voting out those who have not acted and hoping that their replacements act differently.

[tom_paine]

66. Therein lies the problem, for which I am not sure there is a solution

Our voting system is badly broken, and barely represents the will of the people anymore. It needs to be deprivatized, reinsepcted and verified from top to bottom, at the very least.

The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the awesome power of pyschology, advertising and marketing. They could not imagine Hitler or Stalin or mass-psychosis or the subconcious as highway to the soul, easily accessible by repeat TV watching.

The Founding Fathers could not imagine a world where no truth couldn't be obfuscated in the eyes of the vast majority, nor one where any lie could instantly be laundered into conventional wisdom by the application of, as I like to call them, sychological equivalents of atomic bombs placed in the hands of unscrupulous people with billions of dollars worth od "delivery systems".

They could not imagine the pscyhological atomic bomb of a rule which says, the LARGER a group of people, the easier they are to manipulate in a predicatble way.

They could not imagine the awesome logarithmic increases in computing power, or computers at all for that matter, whichturns the annoying loophole of gerrymandering into something wholly different...a way for the rulers to select their subjects and insure perpetual power.

These things they understood at the fringes, as best they could for people of their era. Hence the system of checks and balances.

Hence Franklin's oft quoted reply, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

He may not have understood what was to come, but he understood human nature, and that despots and tyrants always find a way.

We have not kept it. Now we must win it back and make it healthy again.

Again, your sophistry is technically correct, but wholly wrong for the situation in which we live.

Under these conditions (and what is the entire edifice of Modern Imperial Amerika, but an exercise in sophistry and lies) sophistry keeps us fixed on our navels while our homes burn.

[helderheid]

81. What you said. :)

:yourock: :applause: :yourock:

[rateyes]

76. You didn't answer the question...

you talked about how they get away with not impeaching. I want to know how not impeaching an executive who commits high crimes can be consistent with protecting the constitution.

[onenote]

79. I accepted for the sake of argument the assumption that not impeaching

is inconsistent with protecting the Constitution. I'm still trying to find an answer to the question of how a member of Congress can, consistent with the Constitution, be forced to protect the constitution, assuming that impeachment is the only way that the member can protect the constituion.

And I also am curious as to who decides whether the executive is violating the constitution. Your premise assumes that violations of the constitution have been proven. I don't doubt that this administration has violated the constitution, but it seems that, in order for a duty to arise under a member's oath of office, someone would actually have to have found that violations have occurred before the member could be deemed to have violated his/her oath.

[rateyes]

99. That's what investigations are for. nt

[tom_paine]

62. You fall down the rabbit-hole of your own sophist minutiae.

What you say is technically correct, barely correct in a legal sense.

Your series of questions belies that falling-down the rabbit hole. They are disjointed and almost meaningless. Congress as an institution in the dock? I'd ask :wtf: you were talking about but I am not sure you do yourself. As to the other questions, also nearly meaningless in their disjointedness, I believe a template of what impeachment would look like is evinced by the Phony Clinton Impeachment, which at least mimicked what the process would look like when faced with actual crimes.

Do you think the Founding Fathers envisaged a situation where members of one party (many of them didn't even want parties, for reasons which have matured and become painfully obvious today) would literally overlook multiple serial-felonies performed in broad daylight in favor of party fealty?

You are fond of quoting in other threads FDR's imprisonment of Japanese-Americans or Truman's seizure of the steel-mills, but that overlooks the obvious truth that both underlies the technical legality of your arguments while revealing the moral bankruptcy of it.

That is where the "political process" you speak of comes into play. It is a matter of scope, magnitude and repetitiveness of the criminality.

Allow me to quote the Declaration as analogy:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is quite analogous, as the Founders were "impeaching" the government of England. What were they saying? Yes, impeachment is not to be taken lightly. Yes, one or two or maybe even ten transgressions do not make it worth rending government asunder, but (and this applies to impeachment, as well) But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to impeach, as currently no one is speaking of dissolving government.

Don't you see? You can quote legalities all day and all night. You can dig up technicalities to support your position until the end of time. Paid Bushie Sophists get paid quite well to do just that (not that I am accusing you of being a Bushie, just making a point). But it does not change that we have Rulers (I cannot call them by their Constitutional names, it does not seem right) who now disregard the law with equal shameless impunity as King George III, as if they are above it, not touched by it, because of their divine royalty.

Congress gives them no reason to think otherwise, and this is absolutely, no matter which party controls it, a failure not of the brilliant Constitution, but of ourselves. I say again, I am certain that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned a land where so many put Party over Country, where openly performed felonies could be excused on the basis of Party Loyalty.

Exhibit A: Alberto Gonzales' repeat serial-felony-perjuries caught on videotape, contradicted on videotape by, among others, the Director of the FBI. Gonzales' has hired a criminal defense attorney, but this is just a formality. Do you think he is actually going to need one? No. And this in an ironclad case for which you or I or any Democratic Congressperson, for that matter, would already be senteneced and in jail.

THAT ultimately, though it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (neither is habeaus corpus a specifically conferred right, as Gonzales' sophistry pointed out, like you, technically correct but a turning away from the common-sense understood minimalist doctrine that if they mentioned the conditions with which it may be removed, then it must be implicitly conferred), is where the problem lies. With the Bushies in Congress who would stand unified and strong...to protect serial-felons and performers of High Treason from justice. With our Democratic Leadership who is too afraid the media will twist THEM into villainy for seeking justice for serial-villainy, and whatever else they are afraid of. With all of us, who sat back and let this happen in the 80s and 90s, when we could have done something to stop it when it was still stoppable. We are all to blame and I include myself.

Ideally, impeachment from the minority (and you are correct, impeachment by the minority would be more difficult to do, and this is the political aspect that you speak of) could gain a trial and conviction if, as in the time of Nixon (not the minority part, but the evidence changing minds), the evidence churned up by the process would convert enough of the majority party's members to vote for it.

Again I ask, do you really think the Founders imagined a situation where overt multiple-felonies thoroughly proven would STILL be unable to be impeached, no matter who was in power, but by how much majority? No way. They were Country over Party guys, just as we are now filled with Party over Country men and women.

In the face of this repeated train of abuses of usurpations, which surpass whatever unConstitutionalities performed by FDR or Truman, Nixon or even Lincoln in terms of repeated abuses evincing by design the object of despotism, impeachment becomes more of an imperative with each abuse.

There are now literally dozens of them, and they dwarf anything previous Presidents did by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two.

THAT is why your legalistic twistings are meaningless. It is the sheer scope of it that is unprecedented and demands action. That overwhelms the political aspect of it.

But go ahead, make some more sophistry...it's the fastest growing industry in our country next to prisons and surveillance. It changes nothing of the essential truths.

The Founding Fathers would tell you, but I think they would already be fighting or having their nuts shocked in Gitmo by now.

[onenote]

64. LOL!! What you it "sophistry" but you offer no alternative

Okay, I'm waiting. Our founders never intended for a situation like the current one to arise without impeachment occurring. So what exactly did the founders include in the Constitution to address this concern -- who forces the Congress to act and how?

[tom_paine]

71. That's it? That's all you got? A sneer and a rephrasing of the question?

I thought I was having an intellectual discussion. My apologies for being mistaken.

I thought you were so full of yourself, berating others for their lack of knowledge of basic civics, because you had something to bring to the table besides sneering insults and short repetitive sophistries.

I was mistaken. You are full of yourself because you are just that good and we are just so stupid.

One last set of answers, then I am done wasting my time with you:

1) The first step to solving a problem is recognizing the problem.

2) Like you, I am just some jerk posting to a message board. You want the equivalent of five years of intense study by Constitutional Experts to be given you flippantly and off my cuff. I don't have the solution. It took me twenty years of observation and study just to fully understand and be able to annunciate the problem itself.

3) The solution, if there even is one at this late date and with our nation psychologically reengineered from the ground up, would require a large group of men and women far smarter and more knowledgeable than you or me, working at it for weeks or months. Sorry, I realize that no one has more knowledge and smarts than you. I apologize for my presumption in lumping you in with the rest of us.

You know, when I was looking at some of your posts yesterday, I was quite excited to exchange views with you. I enjoy civilized debate with someone who knows what they are talking about, even if they disagree with me.

I see I was utterly mistaken. What a sad disappointment.

Now you can sneer and smear me as you wish, for I am done with you. You are bringing nothing to the table except sneers and smears and a few oft-repeated sophist legalities.

Further discussion is absolutely pointless. I surrender. You are correct in everything you say. Feel better now?

:rofl:

[onenote]

72. Alright, let's try this more calmly.

No name calling, no snide remarks (and no accusations of "sophistry")

Maybe we should drop back and revisit what the issue is because it may just be that we're talking past each other.

The issue I was addressing is whether there is an enforceable duty, created by the Constitution or by the oath of office, that requires members of the House to pursue impeachment against chimpy and/or cheney. My point is that there is no such enforceable duty. No court or other branch of government can dictate to the House and its members whether impeachment is pursued. The only recourse if members do not act is for the electorate to replace those members with other members who act differently, recognizing that there is no way to force either the voters to replace anyone nor is there anyway to force the replacement members to act differently.

The OP in this thread posed this question to those who are not supporting impeachment. I should've made clear at the outset that I support impeachment. I have written and called my elected officials and told them that they should support the commencement of an impeachment inquiry. But, at the same time, I don't think that the process should move forward to a vote on either starting an inquiry or impeachment itself until more support for it emerges. In other words, I was glad that the DK resolution was referred to committee rather than voted on, because if it had been voted on, it would've lost and the process would have ended before it could ever have begun.

[rateyes]

80. I did not pose the question as you frame it...

that's intellectually dishonest. I asked HOW a representative can defend the constitution if they continue to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution without holding the executive accountable for his crimes?

How is refusing to hold the executive accountable with the only provision they have to punish the criminal consistent with their obligation to defend the Constitution?

That's the question, and you haven't answered it.

[tom_paine]

91. In that spirit, just one more reply. We do have an impassable disagreement here.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I have already said that I agree with your reading of the Constitution in that there is no explicitly mentioned "enforceable duty" to impeach in it, just as there is no explicitly granted right of habeas corpus there, either.

It doesn't matter whether you or I, both or neither of us, support impeachment, you are technically correct.

But let's step back from hyper-legalism to reality vs. common sense here. I realize this something of a reiteration of my previous post, which is why we must agree to disagree in the end.

Common-sense dictates that the sheer number, intensity and shameless lawlessness of the Bushies warrants impeachment. Because of the demonstrable provable nature of these multiple felonies and perhaps even treasons, common sense dictates that, in an ideal situation, the grave danger posed to the future liberty of generations yet to come would rouse a large majority of us, no matter what our Party Affiliation to actions required to protect and preserve that future liberty...in this case impeachment.

Not because we are reaching for it as our first tool from the kit, swatting a fly with an a-bomb, but because it is now clear that the problem is so severe, it is the very LAST tool in the kit.

On a personal level, if a Democratic President had broken as many laws shamelessly and contemptuously, I would be howling for justice as much as I am now. THAT is the difference between Free People and Bushies, Nazis, Commies, or any other authoritarians. I strongly suspect you would feel the same.

THAT is the common-sense that the Founders could not have imagined shattered so badly. It is as if the Rule of Gravity has been overturned and Up IS down, now.

Coming from that common sense point of view, impeachment would have already begun. If Congress was actually a co-equal branch anymore (which it isn't, not even close) Republic Congressmen would be horrified at the repeat train of abuses of their co-equal branch, at least enough of them would peel off to form a viable majority. Considering the crimes of the Bushies are at least a hundred times worse in both their content and the shameless way the law is repeatedly, contemptuously blown off, between the voters electing Democrats and this inevitable tide of reaction to hubris, we would have our solid super-majorities with which to proceed.

Polls show that there is a solid majority among the people already who would be ready to proceed and begin to hear the evidence. Common sense would dictate that the House, which is the branch closest to the People and ought to be the most responsive to our will, should follow, and doubly so considering the MSM is virtually a 24/7 pro-Bushie commercial, for even when they criticize the Bushies tepidly they are doing it within the rhetorical cage of Bushie Frames.

Under those circumstances, it is nothing short of amazing that somewhere between 51-54% of us would support impeachment hearings.

But that is another topic, and one which has so many facets as to defy easy explanation, that being the entirety of the psychological snare, brilliantly designed with the most advanced advertising, marketing, PR/propaganda ideas and technologies. I outlined some of it in my previous post, so I will not belabor it.

This is the REALITY. As I said, to those of us who are paying attention, it is literally as if water is flowing uphill before our eyes.

I don't have an answer, expect to make people aware of what is going on, and getting us to a place where common-sense can at least partially function. But undoing such a massive national psychological reengineering is difficult, at best, and even if that is what the Democratic party was aiming to do, the Republics will NEVER allow them a clear and unopposed field for 20 years to do it, as we allowed for them in the 80s and 90s, which allowed it to cement into Conventional Wisdom, making it almost impossible to fight. It is now as much a part of the surroundings as the air we breathe.

Again I say, I do not know what the solution is. The System of Checks and Balances does not seem to be working as it should, not even close. Reality has been literally turned on it's head. Racism is now the word used to describe the victims of racism. Liberal now means Authoritarian. And so on...

I'll say it again, your assessment of the Constitution, I believe, is correct. It was meant to be that way. But it was also meant to operate in a common-sense world in which Article I Section IX could not be construed as not conferring the right of habeas corpus without the utterer of such patent insanity to be hooted and laughed off the stage, as they would have been 20 or 30 years ago had Gonzales made that astonishing claim THEN.

But reality says it was actually taken seriously, and though Specter questioned and ripped him on it a little, the reaction was not nearly appropriate to the insanity and lack of common sense in the assertion.

Kurt Vonnegut described it as "all the burglar alarms of the Constitution being disconnected", but it is so much more than that. All the strings of reality and common-sense have been disconnected.

And after all of that, we come full circle in our discussion. I agree with your reading of the Constitution, and I would think you'd agree with my and Vonnegut's contention that the burglar alarms of the Constitution, common-sense, and reality itself have been purposefully disconnected.

To my mind, there is only one way to confront this False Reality Bubble, which is to smash right through it's side. That requires bravery and guts, because it is smashing from the known, crazy as it is, to the unknown. It may cost people their careers and maybe even their lives.

My response: So? Freedom isn't free and how many of the Declaration's signers paid a price for their bravery? How many of our ancestors paid the ultimate price to pass it on to their children and to us?

My contention is that if the Democratic Leadership stepped out the straitjacket Bushiganda has left us in, that the rightness or our situation combined with the sense of justice that lurks in every human heart would overcome the False Bushie Reality Bubble, when the reality and magnitude of the crimes were revealed.

It might not, but to continue doing what we're doing is to die the slow death of cowardice, the death of the 1930s German Social Democrats.

And THAT, in the end is not acceptable. Better to sacrifice all than die that metaphorical death.

And I think that is what people are saying. Enough of dancing to the Bushie Tune! Enough of being afraid of what the Bushigandists and their weak-minded MSM toadies will do to us! Just smash through the side of the False Reality Bubble and it will shatter, for it is built on lies.

The outcome of such a "step off the edge" is uncertain. So what? To paraphrase John Adams, the sea of liberty is turbulent and uncertain, that is how it always has been and will be.

One last analogy, a sports analogy: In any sport, the worst thing a person or team can do is conform to their opponents' expectations. To come out and play the game exactly as the opponent has game-planned you would. The worse your situation, the more imperative it is to do something they aren't expecting, if nothing else to put them on their heels and not take you so much for granted. If for nothing else to force them to change the way they play and to give THEM something to think about and worry about, which may then lead to mistakes down the road.

That is a facile strategic metaphor, but what it shows is that to smash right through the side of the False Reality Bubble is the right thing to do on a moral level, a common-sense level, AND a strategic level.

OK, I have annunciated my position and what I believe is the position of most "pie-in-the sky" impeachment supporters (hell, I would take a prosecution and conviction of just one of them, Gonzales, just to show them We the People are not entirely impotent and they not entirely above the law, forget about wishing for the moon of a Cheney the a Bush impeachment).

As you can see, it is not pie-in-the-sky at all.

And I do apologize for calling you a sophist. I respect your position and I hope you can now respect mine.

At the end of the day, we are on the same side. See you on the barricades.

Peace.

[onenote]

98. I appreciate your post, and I think we agree more than we disagree

Peace

[rateyes]

101. You do have a way with words...

and they are excellent.

[rateyes]

78. Excellent. Great post. nt

[Joe Fields]

89. There is a mandate. It cannot be enforced.

In a loose analogy, the problem is much like that of a cop, whose job it is to enforce the laws of the municipality they work for. If they see a person committing a crime, then they are supposed to arrest that person. But what can a bystander do, if the cop doesn't arrest the person who committed the crime? It is the cop's job to arrest people who break laws, isn't it? And if he doesn't do it, what then? what recourse is there to see justice done?

You may not want to believe this, and I don't expect to change your mind, but yes, congress does have a mandate to impeach. I know that several people, myself included, pointed that out chapter and verse to you yesterday in another thread. The sad part is that you are partially right in saying that there is no body of government to insure that congress does it's job. There is no recourse, no penalty, save for a congressperson getting voted out of office.

I do think that congresspersons should have to face a punishment for not carrying out their constitutional duties and for betraying their oaths of office. I do not consider being voted out of office a form of punishment.

[mondo joe]

93. To answer your analogy: Isn't a cop subject to job review? Aren't their

channels to complain? If the police fail through negligence to do their jobs can't you sue?

[unapatriciated]

102. time to make a "citizen arrest"

time to remind them of "We the People"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dns4ONyM_-g

[Joe Fields]

83. Exactly. The founding fathers (extreme radicals that they were) had a much

harder road to hoe than we do now. They had to formally declare a split from authoritarian rule, start their own country, organize militias, fight a war for independence and draft a constitution.

All we have to do is maintain vigilance of that wonderful document. Doesn't sound so difficult, does it? That is, unless those in one of the co-equal branches of government abandon that vigilance, and others acquiesce and appease the criminal element that seeks to destroy the foundations of this country.

[rateyes]

15. Wrong answer. One is not defending what one allows

to be raped over and over again with impunity.

[rateyes]

23. Last time I checked, the Constitution was the supreme LAW

of the land. Impeachment, being a provision set in the Constitution, and seeing as how impeachment is followed by a TRIAL in front of a JUDGE with the Senate being JURORS...sounds not so entirely POLITICAL...sounds more LEGAL.

Go study your civics text book again.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Don't need to

it's not a legal process. It's a political one. Which is why it's conducted entirely in the political branch of government, not the judicial one.

[rateyes]

33. Who presides over the trial in the Senate?

That's right. The Chief justice of the Supreme Court.

[onenote]

43. Wrong. The Chief Justice simply plays a limited, ministerial role

Sorry, but you need to study up. First, the only instance in which the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside in an impeachment trial is when the President is being impeached. That, in and of itself, rebuts the notion that the presence of the CJ makes impeachment a "judicial" proceeding, since it would mean that the impeachment of a president is a judicial proceeding but the impeachment of the Vice President isnt.

More importantly, the role played by the CJ is entirely ministerial. He does not control the proceeding. Any ruling the CJ may make can be overturned by a vote of a majority of the Senate. Again, this in and of itself distinguishes the matter from a typical judicial proceeding (unless one thinks that the jury can get together and vote to overrule a judge's evidentiary and other rulings).

Impeachment is not a judicial process. Indeed attempting to label it as "legal" or "judicial" or even "political" is not all that helpful. It is a unique process with its own rules, own history, own Constitutional provisions. It is an "impeachment process". Ultimately, however, as MonkeyFunk correctly notes, it is largely a political process because those who make the decision are politicians -- elected representatives -- and they will make their decisions based on the same amalgam of factors that inform any of their actions.

[rateyes]

48. It's a trial. By definition, that's a judicial process.

Regardless, it does not answer my question:

How can the Reps defend the Constitution and allow the executive to commit crimes against it with impunity?

[H2O Man]

47. It is a trial.

It is a civil trial, and few things are as comical as the attempts by the spineless to say it is not a trial because it carries civil, rather than criminal, penalties.

[rateyes]

49. Yes, it is. Thanks. nt

[onenote]

53. fine, its a "trial". But analogies to typical judicial proceedings are inapt

But it is a trial that has its own unique set of rules and thus attempts to analogize it to the typical criminal or civil judicial process are inapt. As noted, the only time that there is a presiding "judge" in this trial is when the president is being impeached and even then, any ruling made by this "judge" can simply be overturned by a vote of the majority of the jury.

[rateyes]

56. And, it still doesn't answer the question. nt

[warren pease]

26. You again...

When are you going to pick up a basic civics text and educate yourself as the to process of impeachment, what it is, what it isn't and why it's mandated by the Congressional oath of office. Here's the Cliff's Notes version.

Impeachment is an investigation based on evidence or strong indications that a member of the administration has committed one or more impeachable offenses.

If a member of the House suspects that an administration official has committed an impeachable offense -- such as outing a covert CIA operative (treason, or high-treason in time of war) or repeatedly violating the Constitution by ignoring international treaties to which the US is a signatory -- then the House is derelict in its Constitutional duty, as defined by the oath of office, if it doesn't at least submit articles of impeachment to the judiciary committee for its consideration. Note that "consideration" doesn't mean ordering Conyers to sit on them until January 2009.

Comparing impeachment to a conventional prosecution, impeachment is just the equivalent of convening a grand jury, which the ADAs (the judiciary committee), after gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses, expect will result in an indictment. If the grand jury (in this case, the House) fails to return an indictment, then either the jury fell down on the job or the case was without merit. Either way, the House has discharged its duty, since impeachment is the duty, not its approval.

The House returns an indictment, the Senate (which is where the actual trial takes place, with Senators acting as both judges and jury) must then be convinced by the evidence and witness testimony that the crimes in question reached the threshold for impeachable offenses. Regarding impeachment of Cheney/Bush, it's an a posteriori case based on the incontrovertible evidence that they have absolutely demolished Constitutional law in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of instances. If an indictment based on even Kucinich's three articles were taken to trial, it's a slam dunk case.

But remember that to convict, articles of impeachment first had to be introduced, then sent to the judiciary committee, which gathers evidence, questions material witnesses, compels testimony from uncooperative witnesses and so forth, just as in any other criminal proceeding. The House then had to return the indictment, saying that the evidence they've heard and seen constitutes grounds to take the case to trial. The Senate then sat in judgment and returned a verdict. All by the book. Or rather by the Constitution.

Failing to impeach doesn't have anything to do with failure to remove a sitting administration figure. But removal is legally impossible without proceeding down the path that begins with introducing articles of impeachment.

In this situation, once there's a public accounting of the numerous crimes this administration has committed against the Constitution and the rule of law, it might turn out that House members and Senators who failed to vote for impeachment would find their jobs in serious jeopardy next election cycle.

So Pelosi's failure to even allow articles of impeachment out of committee does in fact constitute dereliction of Constitutional duty. She swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's pretty unambiguous, and it doesn't sound like it's optional either.

It's not for her to decide the fate of these criminals. It's for her to uphold her oath of office, shut the hell up, quit appeasing these snakes, get out of the way and let the process unfold. Taking impeachment off the table is perhaps the stupidest, most senseless and unlawful capitulation to executive branch power I've ever heard of -- unlawful being the key point. She isn't responsible for interpreting the Constitution, nor is she authorized by law to let political considerations, back-room deals or veiled threats offset her duty. If she can't handle the pressure, she needs to resign as Speaker and return to serving her constituents.


wp

[MonkeyFunk]

29. For all your words

the simple fact remains that impeachment is never obligatory.

[warren pease]

70. For all your excuses...

There is no getting around these words (from the official web site of the http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/oathoffice.html">Clerk of the House of Representatives):
[br />

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

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

Now they either have to uphold that oath and deal with domestic enemies -- and unlike Ms. Nancy and the rest of the Democratic members of The BushCo Demolition Company and Investment Club, LLC, any idiot can see there are impeachable crimes a-plenty to choose from and Kucinich has already picked three of the lowest hanging fruit and handed the indictment to them.

Or they can continue to violate their oaths by refusing to deal with domestic enemies, in which case they should be charged with perjury, since their complete failure to rein in BushCo indicates they had no intention of doing so and, therefore, they lied when they took the oath.

Unfortunately, penalties for violating Congressional oaths of office are extremely vague, so there's no such thing as a law mandating XX fine or imprisonment for a first offense, etc. Perjury may have to do, although a slick prosecutor could certainly find a few more crimes to charge them with.

For example, only Congress has the authority to declare war, per Article 1, section 8, Par. 11. Congress does not have the right to give that power away, or to delegate that power to the president or anyone else. But that's exactly what they're doing every time the House and Senate passes another new multi-gazillion dollar appropriations bill. I submit Ms. Nancy, Uncle Harry, and Bubba Steny and the rest had planned out exactly how they were going to deal with these issues well before they took their seats in January 2007. If that's true, then they committed perjury when they were sworn in as part of the 110th Congress.

Or there's the small matter of BushCo violating the US War Crimes Act of 1996, which defines such violations as “…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…” punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death. Torture, renditions, unlawful combatants ring a bell?

Since any reasonably astute observer would expect BushCo's pattern of committing massive war crimes to continue after the '06 elections, the Democratic "leadership" committed perjury by vowing to support the Constitution, knowing full well that they would do no such thing.

Same for various Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899 and so on. There's quite a good summary http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/laws_and_treat%C4%B1es_violated_by_pr.htm">here of the various violations of US and international law BushCo has committed with its strategy of preemptive war and the war crimes that have been committed prosecuting the phantom "war on terror."

Anyway, point of all this is that they can't escape their sworn duty just because they're maneuvering for the next election, or because "they don't have the votes," or because dealing with impeachment would prevent them from doing the really important stuff -- like passing resolutions declaring May 12 National Mayonnaise Appreciation Day or naming a new post office after some unknown dead guy. Or because they're too scared to put up a fight. If the latter, just sit down, shut up, get out of the way and let people with political courage and a little edge of toughness take over. They've had their shots and they've failed miserably.

Because of their ineptitude, corruption, complicity or all three, BushCo is in power for at least another year -- another coup brought on by another false flag 9/11-class event resulting in martial law and suspension of the 22nd Amendment (along with the remaining fibers of the shredded Constitution).

Or, if they decide to go for the appearance of legitimacy, they'll just work on perfecting election theft so that another proto-fascist like Ghoul-911-iani waltzes into the white house and continues BushCo policies without missing a step.

These scenarios are only possible because the people we elected to end the Iraq occupation and throw the bastards out have done neither. So if, next November, you suddenly find that elections have been "suspended to ensure the security of the homeland," or some such claptrap, you can thank your heroes in the Democratic leadership. Personally, I'd prefer to curse them, donate to their opponents in the primaries, lobby my own Congresswoman for their removal from leadership positions and anything else I can think of that would help shorten their hideous careers.


wp

[Joe Fields]

94. You are definitely out of your element here. Read a few books, then

come back. We'll talk.

[rateyes]

34. You have it exactly correct. 100% is your grade. nt

[onenote]

46. So the framers created an unenforceable Constitutional duty?

THat apparently is your position. That the failure to conduct any impeachment related proceedings is a dereliction of a constituional duty. This is interesting, since no one has actually introduced a resolution to impeach chimpy, so we must be talking about Cheney. But there have been proceedings related to the cheney impeachment resolution -- DK's resolution was introduced and voted on twice. Once it was tabled and then it was referred to committee. Assuming that the constitutional duty of which you speak requires some actual activity by the judiciary committee, what else does it require. Does it require the Judiciary Committee to vote? Does it require members to vote a particular way? Does it require the full House to vote on the matters considered by the Judiciary Committee? Does it require a particular outcome?

The only tool for enforcing this supposed constitutional duty is the electorate. If the voters think that members of congress should've pursued impeachment but failed to do so, the voters can replace the members of congress. But that, in effect, makes the existence of the duty subject to a majority vote. If Congresscritter A is voted out of office because he/she didn't support impeachment, but Congresscritter B, who also didn't support impeachment is reelected, does that mean that one violated his/her constituional duty, but the other didnt? Or does it simply prove that the constitution imposes a duty on members of Congress but provides absolutely no way to enforce this duty.

[rateyes]

51. And, you still don't answer the question:

How can a Rep defend the Constiution and continue to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution with impunity?

[onenote]

54. and you haven't answer the question

If a rep's obligation to defend the constitution requires him/her to support impeachment, what is the remedy when the rep violates this "obligation" -- or did the framers just like creating meaningless "obligations".

[rateyes]

57. You vote the asshole out of office....

Now, I've answered yours. Will you answer mine?

How can a Rep protect and defend the Constitution while continuing to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution with impunity?

[onenote]

65. as answered above: a rep acts with impunity if the voters allow it.

Do you have another approach?

[rateyes]

74. That doesn't answer the question, and you know it---

please try again.

[rateyes]

82. I didn't ask how a Rep acts with impunity...

I asked how the executive can act with impunity, and it be consistent with the Rep's oath to make sure he doesn't.

[warren pease]

96. Not exactly...

If you read my reply # 70, I've suggested a very reasonable way to go after these conniving wretches.

And of course it's Cheney specifically, although the generic "BushCo" is generally understood to be shorthand for "impeach the whole lot of the criminal bastards." Watching Cheney in the dock, as transcendent an experience as that would be, would only be upstaged by watching the chimp squirm and fidget and sweat and babble and foam at the mouth and completely lose it on international TV -- well, that's the kind of theater I've been waiting for since that hypocrite Raygun failed to get his ass indicted over Iran-Contra or any of the other crimes committed by his henchmen while he slept 23 hours a day.

I don't think Hoyer's efforts to kill DK's HR 333, then directing it back the the Judiciary Committee, where an identical bill has been gathering dust since April, constitutes moving on impeachment. And in fact, Conyers has apparently been ordered to sit on the bill for the rest of the 110th Congress, so we're guaranteed that our alleged representatives will continue to ignore the peoples' will.

I also don't think that waiting to vote them out of office is much of a strategy. Either BushCo will leave peacefully, all of them granted perpetual immunity, and retire to a non-extradition country, in which case impeachment will be dead by definition. Or they'll refuse to leave, declare martial law, cancel elections, dissolve Congress and declare a dictatorship, in which case impeachment will also be DOA. But because of people like Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and the rest, the country will be locked down like a bank vault and oh how happy happy we'll all be, and how grateful to the democratic "leadership" for their restraint.

In the short term, keeping up the pressure on Congress to impeach is far better than waiting for next November. The rage is boiling over; 54 percent want Cheney impeached; 46 percent want the same for Bush.

And keep in mind that, thanks to our diligent corporate mass media, most of the country has never even heard 1/100th of the criminal offenses BushCo has committed since grand theft election 2000. So they've developed these positions despite a near-complete blackout on all BushCo offenses against law, common sense, the international community and the American people.

I don't know how this happened, but I'm damn glad it did. And to allow these corrupt, complicit alleged democrats to ignore that rage is absolutely contemptible in what used to be a representative democracy. I do know that last time my Rep came home for a town hall meeting, the levels of anger, vehemence and eloquence was breathtaking.

Most of the crowd apparently came ready to make the kind of speeches you can't help applauding -- fiery; full of contempt for the "off the table" crowd; nothing but unrelenting rage over what's happened to this country, the Constitution and the US' position in the world at large since 2001; one after the other after the other DEMANDING impeachment immediately.

Pelosi was predictably and repeatedly vilified, as was Reid. A couple of speakers sarcastically noted the Dem's favorite non-impeachment excuses: don't want to ruin '08 chances and don't have the time because they're so very, very busy with other "more important" issues -- as if ridding the world of Bush and Cheney were some optional bit of frivolity to be dealt with after an important floor vote on whether to declare August 15 National Warthog Day.

And the language wasn't particularly genteel, although there was no cussing that I heard; Bush and Cheney were called sociopaths, Bush an idiot, a liar, a draft-dodger and an election thief, Cheney a liar and a malevolent cyborg (in apparent reference to all his metallic and electronic body parts)... the list is extensive.

People are seriously PISSED. Hundreds of thousands are calling, faxing and emailing their own reps, as well as the "leadership," every day demanding an accounting for BushCo. And still they do nothing.

They seem to think that their 11 percent approval rating is just terrific and needs to be protected, and that protection is best put in place through indecision, incoherence and inaction. So they won't impeach a snarling vermin demonspawn with a 9 percent approval rating. Forgive me if I fail to grasp the logic.


wp

[orleans]

30. i'm sticking with the advice from REAL constitutional EXPERTS

john dean
jonathan turley
bruce fein

and the experts say: IMPEACH!

[tom_paine]

73. Don't you know? NO ONE is more of a Constitutional Expert

than onenote (say, that's a great and very descriptive monniker, isn't it?)

We are all just a bunch of stupids and Dean, Turley and Fein a bunch of idealistic fools who are also quite stupid.

We should leave onenote to his One Note.

Because one note does not a melody make.

[onenote]

75. I'm always open to new information, so some links would be helpful

If Turley, Dean and Fein all think that the Constitution creates an enforceable mandate that requires the House to conduct impeachment proceedings, I would be most interested in seeing their arguments and reasoning, particularly a description of how they believe this mandate is to be enforced and by whom.

[tom_paine]

92. Sorry I insulted you. I was pissed. see post #91.

[onenote]

97. No problem

peace

[Joe Fields]

95. Damn, you beat me to it.

:toast:

[rateyes]

61. And, that's not an answer:

Obligatory or not:

How can one defend the Constitution while allowing an executive to commit high crimes against it with impunity?

[mondo joe]

2. DA's typically will not press charges ifthey truly think they can't get a conviction.

It's more like that than like a governor freeing a convict.

[elocs]

11. Exactly, I said that often.

Most who have been screaming for impeachment could be less concerned about actual conviction. Somehow they believe that will magically take care of itself. There are cases of let's say a mobster where everybody and their brother knows they are guilty, but if the DA is sure there would be no conviction they will not indict. Reality is a bitch as well as a harsh mistress.

[rateyes]

17. If they don't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. Not the case here.

[PeaceNikki]

21. Ah, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not what gets a conviction on impeachment.

Votes do.

And they aren't there.

[rateyes]

24. The votes won't ever be there if the vote is never called for...

Gather the facts and go to trial and air the dirty laundry. Conviction will happen, if resignation doesn't happen first.

You don't count votes before they are cast.

[PeaceNikki]

25. But, like noted above, you have a reasonable, educated, realistic idea whether you can convict

before you go through the motions.

[mondo joe]

27. Incorrect. "Reasonable doubt" is the jury's standard - not the prosecution.

DA's have a responsibility to pursue the cases in which they believe they can get a conviction.

[rateyes]

35. They believe they can get a conviction if they feel they can

make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. THIS is SLAM DUNK. There is not a shadow of a doubt about the crimes of this administration.

[mondo joe]

40. "Reasonable doubt" is not the standard for impeachment. NT

[rateyes]

42. I know. The standard is whether or not...

there is reasonable evidence that an executive committed a high crime or high misdemeanor.

[mondo joe]

44. You forgot: per the discretion of the House.

I'm reminded of arguing with creationists who say no one can produce any evidence of evolution, but when such evidence is produced they simply deny it.

[rateyes]

52. I am still not getting from you, or anyone an answer to my question:

How can a Rep protect and defend the Constitution while continuing to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution with impunity?

[onenote]

67. I'll answer it one last time:

You're assumption is that a rep cannot protect and defend the Constitution while continuing to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution with impunity. While I don't agree with the assumption that the only way a rep can try to prevent an executive from committing high crimes is to impeach him, I'll accept your premise for the purposes of this discussion. Thus, assuming you are right that a rep can't protect and defend the Constituion while continuing to allow an executive to commit high crimes against the Constitution with impunity, and that the rep therefore is violating his/her oath of office, the answer under the Constitution is that the only recourse is for the voters to replace that member of congress the next election and hope that the new member acts differently.

Now, once again, I return the ball to your court: Do you think that a court can force a member of congress to support impeachment or somehow force Congress to conduct an impeachment proceeding, notwithstanding the COnstitutional declaration that the House "shall have the sole power" of impeachmnent and the ruling by the Supreme Court that "sole" really truly means "sole".

[rateyes]

84. Number one, you put words in my mouth.

I never said, or made "{the assumption that the only way a rep can try to prevent an executive from committing high crimes is to impeach him..." I'm talking about dealing with crimes "after the fact," not the prevention of them.

Of course no one can FORCE the Representatives to uphold their oath of office. I simply asked how a Representative can uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and continue to allow the Constitution to be violated over and over again.

That's not PROTECTION. That's not DEFENSE. That's a violation of their oath.

[mondo joe]

77. Oh, here's the answer:

A Rep protects and defends the Constitution by using their resources on goals that can actually be accomplished, rather than those that can not. Similarly, the DA prosecutes those cases he or she believes have a reasonable chance of conviction, and generals fight battles as they deem strategic. Sometimes generals walk away from a losing battle, sometimes DAs walk away from a losing case.

Edit to add: I think you make an error in describing others as NOT supporting impeachment. I support impeachment and would love to see it happen. I am simultaneously confident there aren't the votes to convict.

[rateyes]

85. You have come the closest to answering the question...

but, IMO, don't get there.

The Representatives have a winning case. The problem is, they won't even start the investigation. If after the investigation, they don't believe they have a case...let them vote not to bring charges to the House floor.

The excuse that "we don't have the votes" is a poor one. They haven't taken a vote, other than the one NOT to table impeachment of Cheney and to refer impeachment of Cheney to Judiciary. The people's house has spoken. They want hearings. It's time hearings start.

[mondo joe]

87. The discretion over whether it is a winning case is theirs.

Not agreeing with you on the conclusion doesn't mean they are not upholding their oath.

They don't have to take a vote to have an opinion about whether they can win or not - similarly, a DA doesn't have to have a trial to decide whether he or she thinks they can win the case.

You have a disagreement with the reps in office. People often have differences of opinions with district attorneys as well, to carry the analogy.

[mmonk]

3. When they are told their chairmanship might not remain available

to them (imagine if they have been waiting for it 13 years). I spoke out of line since I'm for impeachment, forgive me.

[H2O Man]

4. You will not

get an intelligent answer to that.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. He already did

the problem is you disagree with the answer, so you deem it "unintelligent". But that's just your opinion.

[Karenina]

9. Unintelligent, traitorous AND unAmerican.

Just MY opinion.

[tom_paine]

10. Pretty self congratulatory, aren't you?

Pop Quiz Question #178.3:

IF your hypothesis is true about impeachment and politcal expediency, what is meant by meant by the comment "We are a Nation of Laws, not a Nation of Men." ?

Please show your reasoning and why your hypothesis is compatible with that comment, so often applied to America.

[H2O Man]

12. Thank you

for proving my point.

[tom_paine]

14. LOL. I admire your brevity, H2OMan!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[rateyes]

20. Impeachment IS legal....

the Constitution is LAW.

[rateyes]

18. I know.

There is no intelligent answer to that.

[jpgray]

104. Al Gore, Bernie Sanders and John Conyers are so far below your exalted level, no?

If only they could marshal Beatles lyrics and out-of-context quotes from dead black people to make their arguments more intelligent.

edit: Sorry--that sounds harsh or dismissive, but what are your standards of "intelligent?" No shortage of smart, progressive lifelong pols have made the argument. On what grounds are they so contemptuously dismissed?

[gowexler]

5. They have failed to uphold their oath

They should be fired. There is no excuse for their behavior.




http://peacecandidates.com/

[mondo joe]

45. "Fired"? By whom?

[MrCoffee]

8. because Congress has abdicated its role as an investigative body as far as the WH is concerned

what happened to all those snazzy little basement "hearings" where the lights got turned off? Conyers is in the big chair now...so how many hearings into impeachable offenses have there been?

[Rex]

22. Well, how can you ignore the theft of a national election?

The secrecy about 911? The obvious illegality behind invading Iraq? The treasonous behavior after hurricane Katrina?

They just go about their business and PRAY that this will not be the day America totally falls apart.

IMO.

[morgan2]

31. I would say

constitutional breaches bring a legal/oathy, is that the right word, imperative to impeach whereas a legal breach leaves some sort of prosecutorial discretion.

[rateyes]

36. Well, they have shit all over the Constitution. nt

[Perry Logan]

32. If they can't, they can't. And they can't. You might want to get a tattoo of that.

[rateyes]

37. That's right...

they can't uphold their oath of office if they don't impeach these bastards.

[mmonk]

59. What if can't is a choice?

Because that is reality. Some democrats support letting this go.

[rAVES]

58. Its politics, the Dems would loose the GE if they started Impeachment hearings..

Just like the Republicans did back in 2000

[rateyes]

60. I know it's politics.

And, the question remains unanswered.

[TahitiNut]

90. But ...

:rofl:

[rucky]

68. It's like a sting operation...

in the sense that the investigators are in harms way while they're collecting evidence. In this case the entire nation is in harm's way. Bush WILL find a way to declare martial law. That's not a big stretch of the imagination.

Once he's out of office we will convict him. We better, because it's the only viable reason I can see for not going forward with impeachment.

[rateyes]

86. I don't think that's true. I think that once he's out of office...

we'll hear the same crap we heard when Ford pardoned Nixon...(for the good of the country, we'll leave him alone)...and, Bush/Cheney will laugh all the way to the bank.

[rucky]

88. I would leave the party. n/t

[rateyes]

100. Likewise. nt

[raccoon]

69. Off to Greatest with you! K&R. nt

[jpgray]

103. It's more like a prosecutor waiting to try a guilty party because no jury will convict

Given a biased jury, a far higher standard of incriminating evidence is necessary. Letting a guilty man walk away with a "not guilty" verdict that protects him from further prosecution or indeed investigation is no small risk.