[fhlh]

Impeach him on what grounds is the real question...

[yooling]

I think that impeachment is the desired outcome and the reasons for it are merely an afterthought. The idiot left sees this as the most efficient way to handle political discourse these days, because they lose at the polls.

[Condor51]

****Impeach him on what grounds is the real question...****

DemoncRAT caterwauling aside about "Bush Lied, People Died", or the Iraq War in general there ARE grounds to impeach Dubya - and better than used against Willard.

Article II, Section 1. : Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--

''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Which brings us to: Powers and Duties of the President

1. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
   
2. THE PRESIDENT AS LAW ENFORCER;
   Specifically Powers Derived From This Duty.
   • The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that ''he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' i.e., by others, who are commonly, but not always with strict accuracy, termed his subordinates.
     
   • The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President's acts.

Which now brings us to this:
Article II, Section 4. Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1. Impeachable Offenses
   • The framers early adopted, on June 2, a provision that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ''of mal-practice or neglect of duty.''
   • The Committee of Detail reported as grounds ''Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.'' And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to ''Treason, or bribery.'' On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ''or maladministration'' following ''bribery.''
   • Upon Madison's objection that ''[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,'' Mason suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate.

Do you see where this is going? ... Dereliction of Duty

1. As COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF he has been derelict in protecting our Southern Border during a time of war
2. As the Chief Law Enforcer of the USA he has refused to enforce Immigration Laws, ordered ICE and the DOJ to ignore the law and aided and abetted the invasion of the USA by millions of Illegal Aliens. He's even admitted, stated over and over that "he is helpless and can't do anything".

So there is the reason to Impeach him. And legally it's a 'slam dunk'. But the Dems won't do it as they are complicit in the crimes.

Find Law US Constitution with annotations.

[Publius6961]

Impeach him on what grounds is the real question...

Agreed.
There are lots of reasons why I intensely dislike many of Bush's decisions, but I can think of no other candidate that might do better.

Having said that, any talk of impeachment, for any reason other than "I like the idea", is meaningless. Let's have a discussion about it.

I have a humorous suspicion that a list of substantive reasons as to why Bush should be impeached will mirror the rantings of Democratic Underground, their "public" more restrained face, the Democratic National committee.... and nothing else.