1
   

Impeacheable? Bush?

 
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 01:31 am
January 17, 2003

Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush
by FRANCIS A. BOYLE
professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law


108nd Congress H.Res.XX


1st Session

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January __, 2003

Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.


________________________________________________


A RESOLUTION

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


ARTICLE I

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE II

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views of the American people. In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez - R.I.P. - and H. Res. 86, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1991.)

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Couldn't have said it better myself! McGent? Care to argue anything here? Debra_Law?
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 01:32 am
Oh - not to mention blowing the cover of a CIA agent. A treasonable offence. But of course, he has his fall guys for that EH?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 06:44 am
Hey, Morkat / Massagatto - How ya doin?

Sorry to see you still can't keep from changing peoples screen names around in a childish attempt to belittle.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 12:42 pm
We gladly impeach Clinton for his private pleasures but hesitate to do so regarding W's public assaults on the nation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 08:49 pm
englishmajor wrote:
Care to argue anything here?


Aside from article 6, the whole thing was rather goofy.

And what was described in article 6 wasn't exactly impeachable.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 08:53 pm
JLNobody wrote:
We gladly impeach Clinton for his private pleasures


Perjury and obstruction are private pleasures???
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:11 pm
There's no lack of legal opinion (of the appropriately educated sort) suggesting Bush's actions may well be impeachable. There's just no possibility of that given a Republican controlled congress.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:18 pm
Oralloy, I was referring, of course, to what he and Monica did IN THE OVAL OFFICE. If he had admitted it, rather than covering it up, his actions would not have been impeachable (?). But he wanted to preserve his image by means of the impeachable perjury and obstruction. You are right.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 11:27 pm
I thought this site was about Bush and his crooked administration.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 11:33 pm
It is. Pardon the digression.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:31 am
rabel22 wrote:
I thought this site was about Bush and his crooked administration.


Well, the Democrats, having so recently danced around the Republicans chanting "Nya nya nya -- Clinton's above the law!", might want to think about explaining to the Republicans why they should even care if it is ever shown that Bush committed an impeachable offense.

Otherwise, the Republicans might not care. And you'll need Republican votes for a conviction.



JLNobody wrote:
If he had admitted it, rather than covering it up, his actions would not have been impeachable (?).


Correct.



blatham wrote:
There's no lack of legal opinion (of the appropriately educated sort) suggesting Bush's actions may well be impeachable. There's just no possibility of that given a Republican controlled congress.


Is any of it of higher quality than what englishmajor just posted?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:42 am
talk72000 wrote:
The WMD threat was a lie.


Can you prove that?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:48 am
blueflame1 wrote:
woiyo, sure, sure. You're in an ever shrinking minority of Americans who dont believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war.


The beliefs of a mob drunk on DNC lies and demagogy is one thing.

But how about some hard evidence of something impeachable?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:50 am
oroally, You got to be kidding us here buddy. Smile
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:55 am
Amigo wrote:
oroally, You got to be kidding us here buddy. Smile


No. Not really.

Got any evidence of anything impeachable?

Got an explanation to help the Republicans see why they should even care after Clinton was placed above the law?

I'm guessing no on both counts, but I'll see what you've got.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:56 am
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
Quote:
Why did the Senate overwhelmingly vote to give GW the authority to go in?


1) Congress never voted to invade Iraq 2) The vote was based on lies


1 and 2 contradict each other.

In fact, there was a vote. And if it was based on lies, that has yet to be proven.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:59 am
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
Congress never voted to invade Iraq. That is an irrefutable fact.


Wow! You stubbornly repeat that over and over even after the text of what they voted on was posted????

Sheesh!
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:03 am
oralloy wrote:
Amigo wrote:
oroally, You got to be kidding us here buddy. Smile


No. Not really.

Got any evidence of anything impeachable?

Got an explanation to help the Republicans see why they should even care after Clinton was placed above the law?

I'm guessing no on both counts, but I'll see what you've got.
Was it good for the country that the Republicans went after Clinton in the way they did over a blow job?

Is It good for the country what the Republicans are doing now?

Just what are their motives?

At what cost to America do the seek it?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:08 am
Steppenwolf wrote:
However, I think other distinctions could be made between the President and Congress. It's notable, for instance, that Congress was not privy to the same information or resources available to the administration before the war.


What pertinent information were they not privy to?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:13 am
Amigo wrote:
Was it good for the country that the Republicans went after Clinton in the way they did over a blow job?


The Republicans did not go after Clinton for a blow job.

They went after Clinton for the same things (for the most part) that Libby was indicted for.



Amigo wrote:
Is It good for the country what the Republicans are doing now?

Just what are their motives?

At what cost to America do the seek it?


I'd say good.

Their motives are to win the war.

Post 9/11, the cost of victory is irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Impeacheable? Bush?
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 10:59:25