Rep John Lewis (GA): Bush should be impeached if he broke the law

Lewis: If he broke law, Bush should be impeached

The Associated Press - ATLANTA

U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic congressman from Atlanta told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, when Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War.

"Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law," said Lewis, a veteran civil rights leader. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not king, he is president."



http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69136

Bush should be impeached -because- he broke the law.

Period.

It's hilarous to see how "frantically nervous" Bush is!!

He's on every channel, every day, rambling on and on and on...

One of the media-heads on CNN (I can't remember which one) said he was much better off shutting up after his speech last night; that coming on again today really blew it for him.

They are WORRIED !!! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

Bush should be impeached if he broke the law.

Do they want to argue with that?

Just for all the damage the guy's done (and doesn't care, doesn't recognize and certainly will never admit). How about an almost familiar phrase? "One small step for Bush, one gigantic leap backwards for mankind!".

Surely, if the truth was both known and provable, and... the Congress was totally honest and comitted to justice (or at least Democrats could even participate in governing), Bush would be Impeached (and very likely tried for Treason). After all, he's probably complicit (deeply) in a wide range of incredibly (perhaps even unimaginably) serious crimes. Then again, regardless of the Breaking of Laws, and speaking only of Justice--considering all the death and destruction brough upon the world as a direct result of the Bush Presidency... He deserves... well, you can conclude whatever you're comfortable with.

Too bad we don't have a mechanism for calling for and implementing a vote of 'No Confidence' for the Office of the Presidency, which would require his removal or, at least, an immediate General Election to select a new/replacement President. While we've rarely ever needed such a thing before, we surely do now--and it only makes sense that if more than 2/3rds of the country would conclude a particular President was a 'Disaster', that we should be able to call for his removal/replacement! We might need an extra clause that requires replacement of both President/Vice-President simultaneously--and/or that it ought to be required that a new full General Election be called since it might be a partisan problem--such as the current Republican "Triple Crown" majority in all three branches of government (perhaps that eventuality ought to be Constitutionally precluded/prevented/remediable--though how that would work is anybody's guess). Note: This paragraph is just a fine example some thoughtless meanderings of imagination and is not to be taken seriously since any such changes to the Constitution would be enormously complex and have serious, far ranging implications of which I have no clue (of course, it's not a problem talking about such since to enact any such changes would be such a difficult, involved and time consuming process by the most knowledgeable people--any realization of such notions would have been fully analyzed and worked out).

Methinks I'll just go shut up for a while now! :blush: