Should we impeach?

[In veno, veritas]

Bush recently signed an unconstitutional bill into law, CFR. With his quote of "but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions", he showed that he had foreknowledge of that fact. He blatantly endangered our rights and failed to keep his oath "to support and defend the Constitution". With all this in mind, I cannot think of one reason why we should not move for his impeachment. If anyone of you can think of one, please respond.

[Non-Sequitur]

...judicial review of congressional action is not found anywhere in the text of the constituion.

I would disagree. Article III, Section 1 says:

" The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

Article III, Section 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The legal definition of 'jurisdiction' is "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law." So not only has the Supreme Court the right to determine the Constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress it is duty bound to do so.

[Congressman Billybob]

Every President has sworn the same oath to defend the Constitution, because the oath is specified in the Constitution. Every President since James Madison has "signed an unconstitutional law."

How do we know this? We know it because since that time the Supreme Court has struck down duly passed and signed laws for violation of the Constitution in the terms of every President except Harrison, who died one month into his term.

So if your theary was correct constitutionally, we should have impeached every President except the first three and the one who died promptly after his Inauguration.

Now let's look at the practical side. The Constitution provides for impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. Would the House, which voted by a 60% margin for CFR, then turn around and vote to impeach the President for signing that law? Obviously not. Would the Senate which voted 60% for that law, vote by a 2/3rds margin to convict? Obviously not.

So the discussion of "impeachment" of President Bush for signing Shays-Meehan is historical, constitutional and political nonsese. You may, however, like the lefties are wont to do, conduct a mock trial in your living room. Put on a black robe, get a gavel, declare your charges, and let us know how it comes out.

This issue is now going to be settled as the Constitution provides, in the Supreme Court. I agree with you that it never should have come to this. But it has. If you want to do something constructive, click below and support the attack on this law in that Court.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.

Click here for latest column: "Does Anyone READ the Constitution?"

[ArneFufkin]

Bush might have a Constitutional concern about an Education bill that creates a school voucher program. It would have certainly been litigatd ... and the City of Cleveland has their voucher system in front of the Supreme Court now ... but if the voucher program made it through Congress, I would expect him to sign it if he feels it is good policy.

You are bent out of all shape.

[sneakypete]

Furthermore, it was passed by both the House and Senate, so while it may be unconstitutional, I fail to how President Bush signing a law passed by Congress would qualify as High Crimes and Misdemeanors........

None the less,I'd be willing to bet that every single Dim who voted to pass this would also vote to impeach AND remove Bubba-2 from office.

[sneakypete]

IMO, the whole lot of them ought to be impeached. The only thing they do is maneuver to retain their own power and raise as much money as possible. They've been violating their own oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution for years now.

Bravo!

[bert]

It has not yet been determined that the bill is unconstitutional. That determination can not be made by the President or monday Morning Freepers. The determination of unconstitutional is reserved for the courts, ultimately, the supreme court.

If you had paid attention a few years ago, you would know that there is no impeachable offense.

[ArneFufkin]

So not only has the Supreme Court the right to determine the Constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress it is duty bound to do so.

Bless ya.

[G.Mason]

"In wine, there is truth" ?

Shirley....you jest!

Too much wine perhaps?

[uncbob]

It tells me he either is a VERY good politician or a President playing a very dangerous game with my Constitutional rights.

It tells me he and his advisers are running scared

He has poll ratings of 80%, CFR is nowhere on the list of items Americans care about, he promised his supporters during the campaign he would veto it, but because the democrats might criticize him he signs it.
Failure to do the right thing because of what your opponents might say is not leadership especially when you have the Bully Pulpit

HE IS RUNNING SCARED

[metesky]

I am simply amazed that most people do not see the problem for what it is: lack of representation on both the state and personal level.

Freepers are perfectly capable of starting a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, but show no interest in doing so.

Repeal the 17th and not only would states be represented as the Founders intended, but the huge sums that these bums have to raise in their perpetual re-election campaigns would not be required.

In the House the fact that these phoneys claim to represent an average of 650,000 people is ludicrous on its face.

With the technology available today there is no reason why we can not have thousands of represenatives. The Constitution calls for one Rep per 30,000 citizens and the Constitutional debates declared that should stand until the House should reach 100 members then go to one Rep for every 40,000 until membership reached 200, then go to one Rep for every 50,000 forever.

What has happened is almost exactly what Patrick Henry warned of in his speech of June 5, 1788 before the Virginia Ratifying Convention. It's in the Anti-Federalist Papers.

If the states and the people were truly represented all the pretty boys in the Senate would be history and the Reps being "close to the people" as intended, would have a really hard time voting for anything their constituents disapproved.

[Polonius]

Be serious.

[alnick]

Get a grip.

[Trust but Verify]

As a reactor operator..

Hi Homer!

[snippy_about_it]

And who put it on the table? Get a clue and get a grip. Let our courts do their job now.

[Windy-Dave]

If you don't like the POLICIES of CFR politics, try addressing the real problem! Un-ELECTED non leaders comprise the CFR and Their related Ilk. Liberal ELECTED leaders then give UN-ELECTED CFR'S the ability to subvert the Constitution & The Bill Of Rights. These then become the true UNTOUCHABLES who cannot be voted out of office because they were never elected in the first place and of course you already know we refuse to deal with those who are elected to serve. We never take time to think about the problem so we must endure wallowing in the symptoms, fixing nothing! Why are you griping? Until you are willing to address this up front, you don't deserve anything better, although the COUNTRY & The Republic certainly does!

[GRRRRR]

Yes, by all means. Please start immediately. Call Larry Klayman and let's get right on it....

GRRRRRRollin'

[Neets]

Too much cawfee already dude???

[meenie]

The duty to defend the Constitution lies with the person you see in the mirror every morning. So far, we haven't done our job. When conditions warrant it and become unbearable, history teaches us, there is a process called revolution.

The politicians realize this, so they in turn, try to protect themselves with political correctness, illegal firearm possession, emergency terrorism laws, and any number of laws to prevent citizen uprising. Eventually the balance shifts to the citizenry and all hell breaks loose. We are in the difficult period of still trying to work within the system and not having enough reason to hang the b******ds.

[coloradan]

Endangered our rights??????? We have a system of checks and balances for a reason...I am sure that if the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional, then they will strike it down.

You mean like all the gun laws, vis a visthe Second Amendment?