Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment

...Bush said that a wiretap requires a court order and that constitutional and statutory requirement has not changed simply because the government is trying to chase down terrorists.

That statement is TRUE. If that statement is FALSE--if Bush lied--Brandon, you need to convince me that he lied. Where's YOUR PROOF that he lied?

Until you convince me that Bush lied, I will assume that he told the truth. There is considerable legal authority that substantiates his statement that wiretaps require a court order. So, I BELIEVE HIM.

Do you believe the president when he says a wiretap requires a court order? Do you have proof that he's lying?

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.

AllanSwann wrote:

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

I'm not sure I really back him, though I'd vote for him if that is what it says on the little orange card that the NRA sends out before elections.

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".

Well, if I may steal some of Debra's thunder:

1. Bush states that he knows that wiretaps require a court order.
2. Bush orders wiretaps without a court order.
3. Bush has intentionally broken the law, or solicited someone to break the law.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

AllanSwann wrote:

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

I'm not sure I really back him, though I'd vote for him if that is what it says on the little orange card that the NRA sends out before elections.

AllanSwann wrote:

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

Prescription drugs coverage.

Gutting bankruptcy protection.

Huge tax cuts for those who make over half a million dollars a year.


(Of those three, I only agree with the first one, but I think all count as significant accomplishments.)

AllanSwann wrote:

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

You wouldn't regret ignoring the Constitutional requirements for impeachment?

AllanSwann wrote:

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

Our nation is doing fine. There is no disaster.

oralloy wrote:

AllanSwann wrote:

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

I'm not sure I really back him, though I'd vote for him if that is what it says on the little orange card that the NRA sends out before elections.

AllanSwann wrote:

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

Prescription drugs coverage.

Gutting bankruptcy protection.

Huge tax cuts for those who make over half a million dollars a year.


(Of those three, I only agree with the first one, but I think all count as significant accomplishments.)

AllanSwann wrote:

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

You wouldn't regret ignoring the Constitutional requirements for impeachment?

AllanSwann wrote:

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

Our nation is doing fine. There is no disaster.

Only the true cultist Kool-aid drinkers back this guy anymore. Even in my short term tenure here, i have noticed that fewer and fewer posters are willing to defend Bush. The Bush supporters can take this as an insult if they wish but IMNSHO unless you are rich, are a defense contractor or you have some other selfish interst to protect, one really has to be out of her or his mind to defend this disaster of an administration/

AllanSwann wrote:

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.

Do you require any grounds for this impeachment, just to add a legal touch to things? I hate to break it to you, but sometimes your candidate loses the election. The people who like him aren't all nuts or stupid, and the Founding Fathers did not consider impeachment to be a continuation of the election process.

Only the true cultist Kool-aid drinkers back this guy anymore. Even in my short term tenure here, i have noticed that fewer and fewer posters are willing to defend Bush. The Bush supporters can take this as an insult if they wish but IMNSHO unless you are rich, are a defense contractor or you have some other selfish interst to protect, one really has to be out of her or his mind to defend this disaster of an administration/

AllanSwann wrote:

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

Prescription drugs coverage.

Gutting bankruptcy protection.

Huge tax cuts for those who make over half a million dollars a year.


(Of those three, I only agree with the first one, but I think all count as significant accomplishments.)

My admittedly meager understanding of the prescription drugs coverage legislation is that it is a bureaucratic nightmare of red-tape. As a bankruptcy lawyer, I can tell you that the so-called bankruptcy reform act is an even bigger nightmare "bill of goods" sold to Congress by the credit card industry. The huge tax cuts for the wealthy (combined with Bush's revenge war in Iraq) are why we've gone from a budget surplus to another huge deficit financed on the backs of our unborn children.

AllanSwann wrote:

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

Our nation is doing fine. There is no disaster.

Debra_Law wrote:

...Bush said that a wiretap requires a court order and that constitutional and statutory requirement has not changed simply because the government is trying to chase down terrorists.

That statement is TRUE. If that statement is FALSE--if Bush lied--Brandon, you need to convince me that he lied. Where's YOUR PROOF that he lied?

Until you convince me that Bush lied, I will assume that he told the truth. There is considerable legal authority that substantiates his statement that wiretaps require a court order. So, I BELIEVE HIM.

Do you believe the president when he says a wiretap requires a court order? Do you have proof that he's lying?

Sorry, I got off track. What I should have said was provide a link to your proof that....

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.

....Bush intentionally violated the law.

Well, if I may steal some of Debra's thunder:

1. Bush states that he knows that wiretaps require a court order.
2. Bush orders wiretaps without a court order.
3. Bush has intentionally broken the law, or solicited someone to break the law.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

All criminal offenses in violation of federal law are committed against the United States.

Accordingly, you should re-examine your faulty "government as the victim of crime" theory as you have applied it and study the matter of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the proper context of an officer's violation of the public trust.

When President Johnson faced impeachment, the following arguments were made:

Quote:

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.

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

There are some major problems with your argument oralloy. Under your definition the President could call out the military and prevent any voting by people. The govt would certainly not be hurt since it would remain in place. So it wouldn't fall under you definition of High crimes.

The President could jail all those US citizens that opposed him, throw them in jail cells in Cuba and it would not be a high crime under your scenario.

The President could order that 50% of the country be taken out and shot and it wouldn't be a high crime under your scenario.

oralloy wrote:

AllanSwann wrote:

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

I'm not sure I really back him, though I'd vote for him if that is what it says on the little orange card that the NRA sends out before elections.

What a pathetic cop-out. If this what you do in lieu of thinking, then you should be ashamed of yourself.