Rehnquist: "We're Immune from Impeachment..." (paraphrased)

Herald-Tribune ^ | 01/01/2005 | Linda Greenhouse, NYT

[briant]

"That was reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors" such as lying in court. "

When you fail to uphold your oath of office, and cite foreign ruling when you should be citing the contitution you need to be impeached.

[P_A_I]

Your entire post is comprised of begging our previous arguments, -- and sheer denials of what you've already written. Don't you ever get tired of playing such silly games?

[Who is John Galt?]

Your entire post is comprised of begging our previous arguments, -- and sheer denials of what you've already written.

You’re wrong again – as usual. For example, I observed that “I NEVER disagreed ‘that Montana has an equal right to judge for itself infractions of the Constitution – and I invite you to prove me wrong, with specific quotes and links.” Can’t do it, can you, sport? It’s just another one of your endless, unsubstantiated (i.e., phony) claims…

;>)

Don't you ever get tired of playing such silly games?

Actually, I post documented, historical fact – while you post pseudo-historical, unsubstantiated opinion. “Don't you ever get tired of playing such silly games?”

;>)

[justshutupandtakeit]

As if the House would impeach for such trivialities as accually recognizing the existence of foreign law. It did not shape any opinion and has no more legal implication than saying "my corns hurt today" would.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson's followers were not advocates of policies supporting the creation of modern finance capilalism while Hamilton was. Their ideas were simply flying in the face of economic progress and not viable given the way the world was developing. But my biggest problem with them was the anti-military attitudes and policies which weakened our army and navy just when they should have been being built up.

Taylor's statement of what became known as the Laffer Curve seems to overstate the point and make some unwarranted assumptions. The impact of a tax cut depends upon where one is wrt the Optimal Point of Taxation i.e. that rate which maximizes revenue. Of course, the tariffs were not selected with that in mind but also for Protectionist reasons thus Taylor's point was practically irrelevent to the era even if theoretically correct.

[briant]

It didn't shape any opinion?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1353450/posts

Here's an interesting read. Now if you are swear to uphold the US constitution and you can't do it, then you have violated your oath of office. I realize this is trivial to the HoR, but it is a violation no the less.

[Who is John Galt?]

Sorry, but I won't debate economics with any economist. Based on my professional experience working with federal government economists, if you put any three of them in a room together, you'll get three different opinions (and a three-way argument ;>)...