Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment

I find nuclear weapons fascinating, and so adopted oralloy for my ID.

oralloy rides the bomb.

oralloy wrote:

I find nuclear weapons fascinating, and so adopted oralloy for my ID.

This says it all. This is all we needed to hear. This is definitely the kind of reasonable suspicion that bushco needs to suspect that oralloy has ties to terrorism and that he may be plotting to bomb us. Federal black bag operatives are on their way now to grab oralloy and to shuttle him to a secret detention center (at some location outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States--you know, a place where the constitution doesn't apply). Once there, I don't expect the robust interrogation to be pleasant.

parados wrote:

So, let me see if I have your argument correct. The President can't be impeached if he goes out and personally shoots 12 people in cold blood because the crime would not be against the government. Does that sum up your argument?

Pretty much.

parados wrote:

We do know if a President did shoot 12 people he couldn't be indicted while he was President. So your argument would mean a President could shoot 12 people on the day of his innaguration and the country would have no recourse or ability to remove him.

He could be charged upon leaving office.

parados wrote:

That assumes none of the 12 people work for the government. If he shot a single Senator however then he could be impeached. Am I getting your argument correct here?

Perhaps not even then. It would depend on why he shot the Senator.
Why would it depend on the Senator? He is denying constituents of their chosen representative. Sounds like interfering in government to me.

parados wrote:

Sorry, I don't buy it. If the President breaks the law with intent to do so he can be impeached. Plain and simple.

Well, there is nothing to prevent Congress from impeaching a president simply for wearing a blue tie. However, if they impeached him for something other than high crimes and misdemeanors, they'd be violating the Constitution.

Some history: The Framers borrowed the phrase from Britain, where it was first used in connection with an impeachment in 1380. There were several instances of its use during the colonial period: in 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of making uncivil addresses to a woman; in 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, was impeached on account of "his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries," bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom"; in 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the King's Council, was impeached for procuring an office for someone "known to be a person of ill fame and reputation."

Why would it depend on the Senator? He is denying constituents of their chosen representative. Sounds like interfering in government to me.

The president takes an oath to uphold the laws. His willful violation of laws would be pretty much an attack on the government.

As has been stated several times in the NSA spying situation, the President is encroaching on Congress ability to write laws when he fails to follow them.

You are proposing a President that can do anything he wants as long as he doesn't do it to the courts.

Of course that does lead to another question. Can the President be sued civilly if he commits murder while President? If he fails to respond to the subpeona I assume at that time he can be impeached under your scenario.

Quote:

Some history: The Framers borrowed the phrase from Britain, where it was first used in connection with an impeachment in 1380. There were several instances of its use during the colonial period: in 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of making uncivil addresses to a woman; in 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, was impeached on account of "his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries," bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom"; in 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the King's Council, was impeached for procuring an office for someone "known to be a person of ill fame and reputation."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v50/ai_21129268

You still haven't addressed the issue of maladministration being a reason for impeachment since it is a high misdemeanor.

'Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying "the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges."' (Capitol Hill Blue article).

I don't understand the basis for the pro-Bush crowd backing him with so much vigor.

I cannot find one single noteworthy accomplishment in his 5+ years as President.

If I had a vote, I'd vote to impeach him in a heartbeat without a single, solitary regret.

He's been an unmitigated disaster & only time will tell how much damage he's done to our great Nation.

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the founders want the Senate to determine what is or is not impeachable, which is why they did not list those items that are specifically impeachable. He can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; it is abundantly clear that he has violated US law, the question is whether anyone will step up and call him on it.

The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" has specific legal meaning. By listing "high crimes and misdemeanors" they listed what kinds of crimes were impeachable, even though they didn't list each specific crime.

High crimes and high misdemeanors have a precise legal meaning. Nothing mushy or ill-defined about them.

If I had a vote, I'd vote to impeach him in a heartbeat without a single, solitary regret. He's been an unmitigated disaster & only time will tell how much damage he's done to our great Nation.

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the founders want the Senate to determine what is or is not impeachable, which is why they did not list those items that are specifically impeachable. He can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; it is abundantly clear that he has violated US law, the question is whether anyone will step up and call him on it.

The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" has specific legal meaning. By listing "high crimes and misdemeanors" they listed what kinds of crimes were impeachable, even though they didn't list each specific crime.

oralloy wrote:

High crimes and high misdemeanors have a precise legal meaning. Nothing mushy or ill-defined about them.

Please provide us with the "precise legal meaning" of the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and provide your citation to authority.

Perhaps this copy of the annotated Constitution will assist you:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html

Agree or Disagree: If a president intentionally violated a federal law that criminalizes electronic surveillance of United States persons without a court order, that intentional conduct in violation of a federal criminal law would be an impeachable offense.

Debra_Law wrote:

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the founders want the Senate to determine what is or is not impeachable, which is why they did not list those items that are specifically impeachable. He can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; it is abundantly clear that he has violated US law, the question is whether anyone will step up and call him on it.

The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" has specific legal meaning. By listing "high crimes and misdemeanors" they listed what kinds of crimes were impeachable, even though they didn't list each specific crime.

oralloy wrote:

High crimes and high misdemeanors have a precise legal meaning. Nothing mushy or ill-defined about them.

Please provide us with the "precise legal meaning" of the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and provide your citation to authority.

Perhaps this copy of the annotated Constitution will assist you:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html

The law isn't only for those who can give precise legal definitions of things. That's a rather aristocratic point of view. You don't have to be able to give a legal definition to have a pretty good idea of what it means. The Constition isn't only for lawyers. In fact, I would guess that the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was left vague intentionally.

Debra_Law wrote:

Agree or Disagree: If a president intentionally violated a federal law that criminalizes electronic surveillance of United States persons without a court order, that intentional conduct in violation of a federal criminal law would be an impeachable offense.

Prove intent, and provide citations to back up your claims. Even if Bush was wrong legally, it could just as easily be a mistake in good faith.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the founders want the Senate to determine what is or is not impeachable, which is why they did not list those items that are specifically impeachable. He can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; it is abundantly clear that he has violated US law, the question is whether anyone will step up and call him on it.

The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" has specific legal meaning. By listing "high crimes and misdemeanors" they listed what kinds of crimes were impeachable, even though they didn't list each specific crime.

oralloy wrote:

High crimes and high misdemeanors have a precise legal meaning. Nothing mushy or ill-defined about them.

Please provide us with the "precise legal meaning" of the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and provide your citation to authority.

Perhaps this copy of the annotated Constitution will assist you:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html

The law isn't only for those who can give precise legal definitions of things. That's a rather aristocratic point of view. You don't have to be able to give a legal definition to have a pretty good idea of what it means. The Constition isn't only for lawyers. In fact, I would guess that the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was left vague intentionally.

So, Brandon. It appears to be your opinion that oralloy was mistaken when he stated that the phrase at issue has a specific or precise legal meaning.

Brandon wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Agree or Disagree: If a president intentionally violated a federal law that criminalizes electronic surveillance of United States persons without a court order, that intentional conduct in violation of a federal criminal law would be an impeachable offense.

Prove intent, and provide citations to back up your claims. Even if Bush was wrong legally, it could just as easily be a mistake in good faith.

I already did. I even offered to take your hand and lead you through the analysis with respect to Bush's intentional violation of FISA. Rather than continue when you found yourself painted into a corner, you took flight from the thread--you ran away. Unless you grow a backbone and go back to that thread and continue our discussion where we left off, then you don't have the right to demand that anyone prove anything to you because you'll just run away from the thread as a means to avoid acknowledging the truth. Although ignorance is bliss, Brandon, if you pull your head out of that dark, stank hole you've been keeping it in, you might learn something and actually be able to sit down for the first time in your life.

Please provide us with the "precise legal meaning" of the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and provide your citation to authority.

Perhaps this copy of the annotated Constitution will assist you:

Agree or Disagree: If a president intentionally violated a federal law that criminalizes electronic surveillance of United States persons without a court order, that intentional conduct in violation of a federal criminal law would be an impeachable offense.

Debra_Law wrote:

Please provide us with the "precise legal meaning" of the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and provide your citation to authority.

High crimes are those crimes where the government is the victim, rather than some individual or corporation.

High misdemeanors are instances of bad behavior that are not specific criminal acts, but which injure the state regardless. Examples of high misdemeanors would be "dereliction of duty" and "abuse of power".


The best research on the subject that I know of came from the Democrats in 1974. That is my primary source of information on the matter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm

Debra_Law wrote:

Perhaps this copy of the annotated Constitution will assist you:

It might help me hunt down the solution to the maladministration paradox I've been puzzling over. Thanks.

Debra_Law wrote:

Agree or Disagree: If a president intentionally violated a federal law that criminalizes electronic surveillance of United States persons without a court order, that intentional conduct in violation of a federal criminal law would be an impeachable offense.

Disagree strongly. The victim would seem to be the person spied upon, not the government.

The theory of the proponents of impeachment was succinctly put by Representative Butler, one of the managers of the impeachment in the Senate trial. ''An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose.''

Former Justice Benjamin Curtis controverted this argument, saying: ''My first position is, that when the Constitution speaks of 'treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,' it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offences against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done, and I say that this is plainly to be inferred from each and every provision of the Constitution on the subject of impeachment.''

The President's acquittal by a single vote was no doubt not the result of a choice between the two theories, but the result may be said to have placed a gloss on the impeachment language approximating the theory of the defense.

Debra_Law wrote:

Agree or Disagree: If a president intentionally violated a federal law that criminalizes electronic surveillance of United States persons without a court order, that intentional conduct in violation of a federal criminal law would be an impeachable offense.

Prove intent, and provide citations to back up your claims. Even if Bush was wrong legally, it could just as easily be a mistake in good faith.

I already did. I even offered to take your hand and lead you through the analysis with respect to Bush's intentional violation of FISA. Rather than continue when you found yourself painted into a corner, you took flight from the thread--you ran away. Unless you grow a backbone and go back to that thread and continue our discussion where we left off, then you don't have the right to demand that anyone prove anything to you because you'll just run away from the thread as a means to avoid acknowledging the truth. Although ignorance is bliss, Brandon, if you pull your head out of that dark, stank hole you've been keeping it in, you might learn something and actually be able to sit down for the first time in your life.

Your personal comments about me are irrelevant. If you already proved intent to lie on Bush's part, then I ask only that you provide a link to your proof.

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.