An Inconvenient Document

Article. I.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article. II.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section. 4.

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.

Article. III.

Section. 2.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Link: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html

Apparently, somebody should make a movie about it.

:evilfrown:

Impeach those bastids and end THEIR war!

when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Did Congress institute Gitmo? Just asking, because I do not remember that.

So sayeth the Duhbya.

(Actually, he even got that wrong. It's written on parchment.)

It seems each party has found parts they don't like - and are throwing it out piece by piece.


Let's remind ourselves that this is the SOLE basis under which the PEOPLE allow those parasites inside the beltway to even have a job - ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY SUPPORT AND DEFEND IT.

In my view, anyone throwing out ANY part of it has violated that oath.

In my view, we're long down the road toward another violent revolution - the ONLY recourse when our CONSTITUTIONAL government has failed.

Clearly, over 90% of the PEOPLE will be hiding, collaborating, or siding with the usurpers.

had no proof, but just an overwhelming optimistic feeling that we would take back the House and even the Senate. And ya know what, it happened! Even won several bets on it.

Not even a year later, and I have a very bad feeling about what's coming. No proof, but my optimism about the future is TOTALLY GONE! Somethings gotta give, and I don't think it's gonna be pain-free.

:shrug:

If a serious impeachment effort occurs first, then any escalation of hostilities in the war on terror that come later will be seen as a wag-the-dog operation.

If any events that create an escalation in the war occur first, then this will open the door wide for martial law to be declared. When/if that happens, it's game over for a very, very long time.

My guess is that the public finally has (at least subconsciously) a healthy skepticism about this cabal. Still, a lot of this edge-teetering would go away if they would just impeach Cheney.

We have an election to win.

:banghead:

Well... two corners.

:shrug:

:-)

of paper. Does anyone have a link? I've got freepers asking for the quote.

--------------------------------

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml">Bush on the Constitution: 'Just a goddamned piece of paper'

By DOUG THOMPSON

Dec 9, 2005, 06:39


Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine ­ in the end ­ if something is legal or right.

Every federal official ­ including the President ­ who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

:grr:

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!!!

:kick:

:kick:

:kick:

:kick: