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.

[Allegra]

Ah...another Democrat infiltrating FR. It's so easy to spot you. Make it a bit of a challenge next time, huh?

[CDHart]

"Do you REALLY believe that the majority of our government is corrupt?"

Yessir, I do. I have worked as a civil servant at the federal level and interact daily with city and county level bureaucrats. My brother is an official with a large city in New England.

If you define "corrupt" as being willing to use your power to do special favors for friends or family, then government is corrupt.

When you receive money in return for such favors, you are corrupt. And the majority of government does such things on a daily basis.

Carolyn

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Get over yourself. Who are you trying to impress with your stupidity?

I am very impressed with his stupidity. He's a Hall of Famer in my book.

[CyberAnt]

Bush is not a Constitutional lawyer - he's a business major. He may suspect the new legislation is not Constitutional, but he doesn't have the tools or knowledge to make such a determination. That's why there are 3 branches of govt.

Just get over it people! You are stuck with Bush - and we have several hot candidates who are lined up and ready to continue his legacy.

[inquest]

What would you say about the Patriot Act then?

The "USA PATRIOT" Act, like so many other acts of Congress over the years, is indeed unconstitutional. And it is technically true that attempting to enforce an unconstitutional law is an impeachable offense. The logic is as follows: 1. To say that a law is unconstitutional is simply to say that it doesn't exist, since it conflicts with law of a higher legal authority. 2. To attempt to enforce a law that doesn't exist, either through arrest of a person, invasion and seizure of property, or any other intrusive means, is to undertake those means without just cause. 3. If any private citizen were to do any of those things, it would be considered a felony, hence if an officer of government were to do so, it would certainly consitute grounds for impeachment.

If Bush is refraining from enforcing this particular law, then he's off the hook on this particular count. Of course, either way, I realize impeachment is not going to happen for something like this, but this is nonetheless the law as I'm able to see it.

[In veno, veritas]

A good answer. I realize that it won't happen, despite what the majority of repliers may think I think, I just had a hard time trying to figure out why. I couldn't think of an answer so I thought people here might, and so far, I'll consider you to be the fourth person to give a good reason.

[mrsmith]

Washington: Judicial act of 1789, gave Supreme Court powers not granted it by the Constituion.
Adams: ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT!!! (where have you been?)
Jefferson: Laws for the annexation of Louisiana Territory.

Several other examples can be found, feel free to do so.

W. H. "Harrison" ... poor guy- I'd forgotten all about him!
I'll dig a little about "ol tippecanoe", but you just might have me there!

[In veno, veritas]

I'm not a major in anything either, but both Bush and I have advisers to the subject.
"and we have several hot candidates who are lined up and ready to continue his legacy."
This is what I'm afraid of if his legacy is signing unconstitutional bills to violate our rights.

[In veno, veritas]

Good answer. You are now the fifth person to do so. (BTW, I wouldn't really count Harrison anyhow since he was dead in 30 days.)

[mrsmith]

It's good to keep a little historical perspective on these things.

[In veno, veritas]

I've by the most part stopped refering to us as a democracy, although sometimes I slip from my indoctrination days. I've often told people that they can quote me when I say, "Democracy sucks, all the founding fathers were unanimous on that point."

[Texasforever]

1) judicial review of congressional action is not found anywhere in the text of the constitution. It is a power the court took for itself by judicial fiat in a case styled Marbury v. Madison and its progeny.

M v M was decided only 15 years (1803) after the Constitution was ratified. During those years, each branch was in the process of asserting what they thought were their constitutional powers. Marshall ruled in Madison's favor BUT he also ruled that the reason he prevailed was the judicial power of "writs of mandamus" was unconstitutional. Power assumed is power granted and from that point on, the determination that the USSC decided the issue of Constitutional soundness has been settled. With the exception of 15 short years, that has been the case in this country.

[In veno, veritas]

No, I am ignorant, and you're the idiot. The difference is I admit that I am fallible, while you must think that you're God's gift to politics. I didn't want attention, I just wanted an answer. If you must know, I am still fairly young and when left alone, will fall into traps. This is why I rely upon the info of others on this forum who have the years of expierience to correct me. BTW, I donated money as well, so once again, who the hell do you think you are?

[Texasforever]

No, I am ignorant, and you're the idiot. The difference is I admit that I am fallible,

I don't know how young you are but even high school civics classes explain the impeachment process and the role of each branch of government. You either did not listen OR you did not understand. Asking the question of "should we impeach?" shows that you should never again post a vanity until you have some reasonable reason and facts to make your argument. I don't see why you are surprised that some comments were dismissive. To not have a basic grounding in constitutional process is unforgivable for a person old enough to participate in a forum based on exactly that. Yes we all have to learn however, that question could have been asked and answered on a multitude of threads dealing with the subject of CFR. I would hope you would keep that in mind the next time you decide to post a vanity with such an over the top title. If you don't, then don't whine that you are "just trying to learn".

[Sci Fi Guy]

I won't be hypocritical in moving to impeach Clinton and not Bush.

Question 1. Is the Charge grounds for impeachment? I am not asking for an emotional response. In the history of the US, has this been considered a grounds for impeachment? Document your answer. Personally I don't think it does. Impeachment is safeguard for ethical - criminal misdoings. The constitutional balance of powers is the safeguard to protect the Constitution and our rights.

Question 2. Does Bush have a resonable response to the charges. Actually he does. All Bush has to do is point out that there are many people who think CFR is constitutional.

Question 3. Since Congress passed this law, Haven't they in effect already ruled that Bush's actions are constitutional?

[In veno, veritas]

High school courses only cover the basics, all of they refer to I had, including the charge. Consider the impeachment of Johnson. Here we Johnson upsetting the radical repubs by vetoing most of the Reconstruction Acts. Three months before his real impeachment due to the Tenure Acts, the Judiciary Committee had reported a resolution of impeachment charging President Johnson with omissions of duty, usurpations of power, and violations of his oath of office, the laws and the Constitution in his conflict of Reconstruction. Now I know currently that the Congress which voted for the bill would never impeach. It is mainly a question of what if they could have the option, if by some miracle we voted a majority of the senators and representatives out for those who hold the Constitution in full before Bush would be running for reelection. My conclusion based upon the posts of only 5 people say no. I am not surprised by the comments, I was expecting them and was trying to convince them that there are better ways to go about this subject. However, I will consider your advice to post under an already posted thread.

[In veno, veritas]

Correction, all of the basics I had.

[paul544]

There was no need to admit your ignorance. It was screamed from the very title of your stupid, little post. If you need someone to come along and prove you wrong about equating George W Bush to Bill Clinton, that's not only ignorance, that is flat out stupidity.

[inquest]

Being a newbie myself, I'm not really going to inject myself too far into an argument about FR protocol, but I just wanted to point out for the record that on other threads, several "adult" Freepers were openly suggesting that Bush be impeached for signing CFR. I don't know whether or not they were serious, but it probably didn't hurt matters too much for someone to bring this out into the open where it can be dealt with once and for all.

[Wurlitzer]

"You're a complete ass to compare Clinton to Bush in this way. "

So that is your logical response? What you seem to be saying is because Pres. Bush is one of us, we should not hold him to the same standards as clinton.

My friend, we had 8 years of lies, un-constitutional actions. I will not make excuses for demanding someone from the GOP obey his own oath. If he does not obey his own words then yes, he is acting like clinton and we should be honest enought to hold him to the same standards.