Posted on 02/16/2006 3:31:46 PM PST by Petronski
From the tourist brochures and cultural commentaries, Rhode Island sounds a lot like New Zealand or Tasmania in Australia:
1) Picturesque rural scene? Tick.
2) Historically monocultural? Tick.
3) People generally well educated and thus indoctrinated by leftist garbage? Tick.
4) Achieved prosperity early but then stagnated? Tick.
5) Beautiful mansions? That's a tricky one, but Auckland and Wellington do have their shares of mansions.
6) Active yauchting scene? Tick.
7) Tourism as a main source of economy? Tick.
8) Agriculture? Tick.
That's unbelievable. What a bunch of maroons.
In the <<NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.>> House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941- 42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly impeachable offenses; the Speaker and the House took no action on the request since the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368); see III, 2510, wherein the Committee on the Judiciary (to which the matter had been referred by privileged resolution) reported that a civil officer (the Vice President) could not be impeached for acts or omissions committed prior to his term of office; but see III, 1736, however, the Vice President's request that the House investigate charges against his prior offical conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on motion, to a select committee.
I'm relieved to learn that it isn't Lincoln Chafee calling for this....
You know I really think the rest of the "full sized" states ought to vote to consolidate all those little county sized socialist states into one or two real states. That way we could cut down on the damage they do to our country.
For everyone who thinks Lincoln Chaffee is as bad as a democrat...lol.
This story here from the Pawtucket Times, dated Feb. 2, 2006, says:
...Under the Constitution, impeachments start in the House of Representatives and Sheeler called on Reps. Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin, who are the national co-chairs of the campaign of Sheldon Whitehouse, who is opposing Sheeler for the Democratic nomination for the seat now held by Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee.So, they have to go to the U.S. House first. Federal trumps State.Questioned by reporters after his speech, Sheeler acknowledged that there are "probably in the neighborhood of 50 or 60" votes for impeachment in the House right now. There are 435 members in the House; 218 votes would be required to force an impeachment trial in the Senate.
-snip-
Among the high crimes and misdemeanors that Sheeler said Bush and his underlings should be impeached for include everything from the invasion of Iraq, to wiretapping without approval of the courts to the handling of Hurricane Katrina. High crimes and misdemeanors, Sheeler said, "are what Congress says they are."
I think we should just tell SF they're on their own..LOL
Sheeler is probably losing in statewide polls to Sheldon Whitehouse, who Reps. Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin are backing. This move is more likely to gin up only the goofy vote.
Actually, I'd rather see this guy in the Senate than Chafee. At least he's entertaining. And he'll vote just like Chafee does anyway.
If there is some obscure procedure under Section 603 which launches an impeachment proceeding, it's still going to go to the Rules Committee or the Judiciary Committee....where it's going to die.
Chafee is a Democrat.
Yep. That's like I said, good luck to the DUmmies getting this through the U.S. House. David Drier (R-CA) is the Chairman of the Rules Committee, and F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Why doesn't SF just secede from the US? Don't think there would be a whole lot of opposition. Let them protect themselves, and generate their own welfare funds - not one dime from the US. Secession!
When I looked at political discussions that average folks took in the late 1990s, one thing I notices is that only San Francisco remotedly resembled political discourses in New Zealand while other places (even including New York, Boston, Belytway, Minnesota, or Seattle) were/are far more conservative.
In other words, San Francisco is far more like New Zealand than the United States. If they can accept the monarchy as their figurehead head of state, there is no reason why they shouldn't separate from the United States and join Canada or New Zealand. After all, places with an active constitutional monarchy scene are more often than not hotbeds for Euro-socialism. (Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand all have constitutional monarchy and entrenched socialism beliefs)
OMG...the man is running for a Senate seat and he has NO idea how our government works! ROTFLOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.