Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: In veno, veritas
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?"

22 posted on 03/30/2002 3:46:58 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Congressman Billybob
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.

30 posted on 03/30/2002 4:19:25 AM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Congressman Billybob
I like your post, it has provided a reason not to.
58 posted on 03/31/2002 12:36:45 AM PST by In veno, veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson