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.

[onedoug]

It's not about sex. Let's move on.

[YaYa123]

"Practice what you preach" = "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

[johnfl61]

Barf alert!!

[mrsmith]

Maybe I'll get an answer this time-

Name a President who didn't sign an unconstitutional law.

No answer huh?
Then where's your point?

[ewchil]

< sarcasm> Maybe you're an ass because you spelled vino wrong? < /sarcasm>

[Mfkmmof4]

Okay, impeach him. Another ridiculous use of our TAX MONEY!! Let Bush stay he returned morality, decorum and integrity to the office of president. IMO

[hflynn]

In veno, veritas is not under the alkafluence of incahol that thinkle peep.

[Non-Sequitur]

But let's examine the quote in it's entirity. Chief Justice Marshall wrote:

It is emphatically the province and duty ot the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court muat determnine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

How else can the Supreme Court fulfill it's duties as one of the three branches of government if it does not act as an interpreter of the law? The Constitution gives them jurisdiction in this

[Free the USA]

Impeach Bush and any and all federally elected politicians who pretend the Constitution is irrelevant to their job.

[inquest]

Now you can't be impeaching a President for signing an unconstitutional law. But if he were to try to enforce that law, well then...

[CDHart]

"perhaps we could come up with something more intelligent to talk about."

Is there something un-intelligent about pointing out that the large majority of our government at all levels is corrupt? Why do you think groups and businesses want to pay them all so much money? It's because of the power they have and they gained that power by violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

This is a fairly simple concept. It should not be difficult for you to grasp.

Carolyn

[In veno, veritas]

That a good idea, but this has already been before the court in BUCKLEY v. VALEO from 1976. However, I do fully beleive that he did it to increase the strength of the Repubs.

[In veno, veritas]

This is where we would run into the problem we had with Clinton - voting along party lines and public oppinion, not in accordance with the law.

[goldstategop]

And he has been enjoined from enforcing the law. Apparently President Bush signed it with no fanfare to placate the base that wanted him to veto it. Comrades Shays and McLame did not get their photo opportunity. As for impeaching President Bush, I don't think you can do it over a difference of opinion about a law. Do we really want to criminalize politics in this country? That's Shays and McLame's agenda. Conservatives should be no part of it.

[RickyJ]

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.

I agree, all who voted for this bill need to be impeached.

[In veno, veritas]

The ultimate authority is in the people, and them alone. If the President was to veto the bill, he would list his objections to it. Therefore he must be able to judge it as well.

[In veno, veritas]

Your comment does nothing but further bind the attacked to his proposal. You have no arguement, no points, and I award you no points. May God have mercy on your soul.

[In veno, veritas]

I like your post, it has provided a reason not to.

[In veno, veritas]

"The determination of unconstitutional is reserved for the courts, ultimately, the supreme court."
I say it is ultimately up to us, the people. I did pay attention a couple of years ago, Clinton was impeached, though found not guilty by a partisan court who, with few exceptions, didn't look at the evidence.

[In veno, veritas]

My name is not Shirley, and you have no point either.