Posted on 03/12/2006 2:36:34 PM PST by Blackirish
APN) ATLANTA 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bushs impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.
We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and were supporting Conyerss resolution, Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.
The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and hes doing just the opposite, hes undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it, Goodman said.
Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bushs impeachment.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlantaprogressivenews.com ...
Well there you go... this makes it very simple as to where to NEVER, EVER, move to.
LOL - I forgot about that one! Maybe we can incorporate it into the '08 campaign.
Thank you retired Army for you service and duty to United States of America. God bless you.
Actually, they would need 67 votes for conviction if all senators are present: see Article I, Sec. 3 of the Constitution ("And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.").
I was replying to post 31 where another poster was saying that a Dhimmicrat simple majority in the senate was enough to remove. Either way-not going to happen.
And how many so-called Freepers will watch with glee?
Your 'feelings are bleeding through' what is lawfully required to impeach a president. Kind of make you sound just like a demonRAT.
Sorry - but it sounds like what it is.
Didn't Conyers draft articles of impeachment against President Reagan also? I predict the same result here.
Not a sacrifice at all, an honor. Thanks
Well I didn't say the President should be impeached, but there may well be some causes that fit. Neglect of duty and breach of the public trust with immigration comes to mind. It may be a reach, but treason could also mean helping a foreign goverment (Its people) do harm to the United States. He has not stopped the invasion from Mexico and apparently will not. Clearly the United States and it citizens have been harmed. Taxpayers footing the bills, anchor babies, proposed amnesty for lawbreakers, all are hurting the USA.
Who is the nut case, those calling for our laws to be enforced or those encouraging them to be broken?
Censured and Impeached.
What's next?
Tarred and feathered, stripped of US citizenship?
Arcata, Santa Cruz and San Francisco- yeah, these are California cities that inspire staggering fear in the GOP. Much the same, as the pandering signatories. Well, I guess even chicken littles get their cheeep azz say about nothing- even in a Free Republic.
Sorry - but it sounds like what it is.
My point is that impeaching him on the Iraq war is wrong. We knew what the situation was at the time. We couldn't take a chance on Saddam not having WMD when Sadaams actions indicated that he did have WMDs.
My point is; if you are going to try to impeach the president do it on an issue that will go across party lines.
Americans don't like that border with Mexico left open. And they don't like people who are trying to close it being called vigilantes by the President. They don't like amnesty programs for trespassers either.
That failure to secure our border with Mexico would be a better tack for the Socialists(Dems) to take rather than the Iraq War approach.
But as I mentioned in an earlier post; along with the Bushies, both the Republicans and the Socialists(dems) want the border porous, so they are not inclined to take that tack on the President. - Tom
What is lawfully required to impeach a president? How about Article x against Johnson?
PUKE PING!
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.