High Crimes and Misdemeanors

[Outriderdark]

Concerning the Administration.....and spying on Americans...and lies that get soldiers killed and mangled and destroy our credibility as a nation...
I'm fired up by the complete lack of outrage by other politicians (we get platitudes about hearings and inquiries). Ted Kennedy of all frickin' people is the only one in the public eye outraged.
And the lack of outrage by the media, none of whom seem to be familiar with Constitutional supremecy.
And the seemingly apathetic response by the public.
These are impeachable and prosecutable actions by the chief executive, and everyone who matters is just sitting around going, "hmmmm...."
The bottom line is, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Meaning, any laws passed, or Congressional authorizations issued, or executive orders rendered that are contrary to the Constitution are illegal in the highest sense of the word.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to remove a president through impeachment (like an indictment) by the House and then trial by the Senate. Those who decide whether to proceed with an impeachment are the Judiciary Commitee.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "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."
The grey area is the "high crimes and misdemeanors" part.
[ the following I copied from a website cause I'm lazy]
According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.
In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:
Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain
Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted by one vote and remained in office.
Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
[end flagrant plagiarism]
And we all know the about the Clinton debacle.
If a sitting President can be impeached for the stupid sh*t that Clinton was impeached for, I find it beyond comprehension that between the Iraq war intelligence scandal, and now the issue of p*ssing all over our Constitutional liberties the Judiciary Commitee isn't beginning impeachment hearings.

I need a drink....

[troy2000]

You need to remember that Clinton fibbing about getting his knob polished struck at the very core of America's values.

But Bush is just a good ole boy, with good old-fashioned values. He believes in starting wars, spying on citizens, torturing people, and that sort of all-American stuff.

Seriously, I think he's committed impeachable offenses. But today's Republican congressmen and senators aren't made of the same stuff as those who got together and told Nixon that if he didn't leave they'd help throw him out. They're more interested in making sure that Republicans stay in power than they are in seeing the power properly used.

It took the Dems a couple of generations of being in charge of Congress before their arrogance got totally out of hand; it seems to have taken the Republicans about two weeks to toss their Contract With America, and start grabbing money and power with both hands.

And although I'm registered Dem instead of GOP now, I can understand your pain that things have gotten down so low that you and Teddy are actually agreeing.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary doesn't do impeachments. the House has to hold hearings and decide whether to impeach; then the Senate has to vote.

[Outriderdark]

Geez...I even forgot about the torture stuff. It's getting hard to keep track....ugg

Actually, I meant the Judicary Comittee of the House decides whether to open impeachment hearings...I'll fix that.

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

If a sitting President can be impeached for the stupid sh*t that Clinton was impeached for, I find it beyond comprehension that between the Iraq war intelligence scandal, and now the issue of p*ssing all over our Constitutional liberties the Judiciary isn't beginning impeachment hearings.

I would hardly consider Clinton's actions stupid stuff. The charges were actually crimes. If I obstruct justice and commit perjury, I would be considered a criminal. Bill Clinton should be no different.

Andrew Johnson's impeachment was much more petty than Clinton's situation. That situation was over a power struggle between the President and Congress. A law requiring Senate approval for firing of Cabinet level personnel was being put to the test. Their position was that if it required Senate advice and consent to install a Cabinet member, it should take Senate approval for the President to remove a member. Johnson immediately asked for the resignation of the Secretary of War, knowing he would not do so willingly. He then fired the Secretary and appointed an interim in his stead. Here is a good link for those who want more info: http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com...peachmentI.htm

Now granted, there were other political factors involved with the Johnson presidency. Some of them were justified, some maybe inflated. Either way, he was accused of conspiracy in removing the Sec. of War and replacing him illegally. The odd thing is that the Constitution may deal with advice and consent for installation but not necessarily removal, hence the act of Congress, which should have been a Constitutional Amendment.

That is the same view I had when the "line item veto" came about. Though I think that such a veto method is a good thing, considering the "pork" and bill riders, the process for enacting the veto should have been done through the Constitution and not merely through whimsical and revocable law.

[troylaplante]

Just to be fair, as well, Clinton and Carter also had similar executive orders to Bush's. That is not to say that I excuse the Bush administration's actions. I actually disagree with much of that administration's policies.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

Actually, I meant the Judicary Comittee of the House decides whether to open impeachment hearings

I should've been able to figure what you meant.

[Outriderdark]

I'd lie about getting my gherkin pickled in a second....
But I'll be d*mned if I'd ever crap all over the priciples and integrity of this nation the way these people seem to do so easily.

[troylaplante]

So...that is different from the previous administration HOW?

[Outriderdark]

I agree that the Clinton thing was a mess, but relatively speaking...compared to the current turmoil, Clinton was minor league.
My biggest contention to the stuff with Clinton, is that he didn't lie about a crime or criminal evidence. It could be argued that no self respecting court would convict a married man with children for lying about an affair that had no bearing on any legal issues. And that Kenneth Starr was remiss in broaching the subject to begin with.
The problem with special prosecuters is you don't end up in trouble for what was originally being investigated. They end up in trouble for what they say during the investigation. Like the recent CIA leak thing. Scooter got in trouble for what he said in the GJ but not for the actual stuff the GJ was investigating. It feeds on itself.
I think the Johnson, Taylor, and Nixon attempts had more to do with the nation, however politically motivated.
The Clinton stuff was just so seperate from his position as the Chief Executive and had nothing to do with his governance. Which is why the Senate threw it out with more than a little embarrassment.
Don't get me wrong, I was no fan of Clinton.

[BattleRifleG3]

Folks used to trust the repubs more for individual liberties and constitutional support. They are starting to lose their trust. I believe the time is now more than ever that a real constitutional conservative can take the lead. Many of us think of the repubs as the lesser of two evils. I'll never trust the dumocrats more, but a number of Americans less decided may swing. What we need is a different kind of repub, not a centrist who promises both sides everything and makes each side pay for it in taxes and/or freedom, but one who will restore people's freedom and focus the government more on doing a narrower job well.

[Outriderdark]

I'm afraid I don't understand, troylaplante.

[practical]

I personally could care less how many terrorists our government spys on or tortures. I'm a law abiding citizen and feel I have nothing to fear from the government as far these things go. I'm all for civil liberties, but I think there is quite appropriately a different rule book for terrorists.

[Outriderdark]

I just wish they could find a constututional conservative that didn't end up kowtowing to the religious-right. Whenever we get a conservative we seem to end up with censorship and legislated morality.

[Outriderdark]

Originally Posted by practical

I personally could care less how many terrorists our government spys on or tortures. I'm a law abiding citizen and feel I have nothing to fear from the government as far these things go. I'm all for civil liberties, but I think there is quite appropriately a different rule book for terrorists.

The problem with that is the government also defines who a terrorist is. It may be all fine and good now, but what about the future. Especially for we who are gun owners.
We've been warned repeatedly by the founding dudes to always fear what the government is up to. "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance"....he didn't mean to be vigilant about foriegn invaders, he meant don't take your eyes off the governmment for a second or you will lose your Liberty.

I also must say, respectfully, that the word "terrorist" has been given some kind of magical quality these days. They're just criminals with political agendas. There's nothing superhuman about them and we don't need extraordinary measures to deal with them. They aren't smarter or better than other criminal organizations. Maybe bigger, better financed.
All we ever needed was the people in place already to do their jobs well. 9/11 could have been prevented with the existing structure but they were asleep at the switch.
There is a larger agenda in all of this and I think people need to start seeing it.

[Outriderdark]

Remember this...when power hungry, politically motivated people run out of enemies, they find new ones.

What happens when the "War on Terror" is over?

[practical]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

What happens when the "War on Terror" is over?

I don't see the crazies giving up anytime soon. By "anytime soon" I mean ever.

[Outriderdark]

I think Carl Shurz put it well when he said:

From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.

[NorCalAshnjikov]

Originally Posted by practical

I don't see the crazies giving up anytime soon. By "anytime soon" I mean ever.

yup, all politicians want to remain in power until they get so stinking influential they don't need to hold office to effectively pillage

[Otter]

I agree with Practical, I don't care how the government fights the war on terrorists, anyone who thinks communications are secure is an idiot. I wouldn't say anything on the phone that I didn't want anyone to overhear.
We live under a blanket of security that the Commander in Chief and our military provide for us, then !!!!! about how they keep us secure. Let them do their jobs. If you're a law abiding citizen minding your own business you have nothing to fear from our government.

"Life is too important to be taken seriously."

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

My biggest contention to the stuff with Clinton, is that he didn't lie about a crime or criminal evidence. It could be argued that no self respecting court would convict a married man with children for lying about an affair that had no bearing on any legal issues...The Clinton stuff was just so seperate from his position as the Chief Executive and had nothing to do with his governance.

That is where we differ. If the man lied, so what? I expect worldy men to lie. However, he lied in court, under oath and committed perjury. THAT is a big deal. It doesn't matter if it is connected to his position of Chief Exec. or not. That is not a requisite for impeachment.