NM Senate Rules Committee Passes Impeachment Resolution

http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2007/02/breaking_nm_sen.html

Friday, February 16, 2007

NM Senate Rules Committee Passes Bush-Cheney Impeachment Resolution

Senate Joint Resolution 5, the legislation urging impeachment of Bush and Cheney, was passed this morning in the NM Senate Rules Committee with only Democrats present, all of whom voted for the resolution! The meeting room was packed to the gills, with a huge crowd winding down the hallways outside the hearing. Several hours were spent listening to citizens speak on behalf of the bill, until Committee members were forced to move on to other business.

I find it appalling that every Republican member of the Committee refused to attend and listen to what our citizens have to say about what may well be the most important issues of our era -- the Iraq occupation and the refusal of the President and Vice President to obey the law. I guess they couldn't bear to hear ordinary people speaking truth to power. I guess they believe they only represent the Republicans in their districts, not all the citizens.

Continued...
http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2007/02/breaking_nm_sen.html

"The resolution has to pass through the Senate Public Affairs and Senate Judiciary Committees before it can be debated on the Senate Floor"

Isn't Congress then required by law to acknowledge the resolution and debate it PUBLICALLY?

There are other states working on similar resolutions...anyone now which ones?

A big K&R


YAY New Mexico!! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :yourock:

How shameful to have a deserter from the National Guard
leading our sons and daughters into a Crusade for CRONY OIL PROFITS
in Iraq.

Throw the bum out.

And all of his chickehawk republicon leech cronies & male prostitutes as well.

Restore some Dignitude to the White House.

And that's no fun. No fun at all.

"Standing with Bush" isn't a very appealing prospect these days. Abstaining is the cowards way out.

Kinda like Libby's defense. Just shut up and bow to the inevitable.

Bush's minions in Congress will run the other way too if the impeachophobic leadership conquers their debilitating condition and gets serious about impeachingg.

Between the squawks of "Impossible!" and certainty that Democratic cowardice will win the day, the chattering class is letting bits of the reality that so frightens them slip out:

I'm glad to see that somebody is noticing and wanting to do something about this, but does anyone know how long this impeachment process take?

After all, the primary reason Ford pardoned Nixon was so that the American people could begin the healing process, knowing that the indictment/impeachment process could take years.

I hope that this is swift and brutal!!!

That is to say how long it should/could take.

All the state leg has to do is approved their resolution and transmit it to the House for action. Which is where it gets vague. It's not clear (at least to me) in what manner the House is required to take up the state resolution. I would imagine they have full discretion to dump it quickly and quietly -- but there might be something public required.

Even if scuttled, it will be an effective battering ram against their ongoing stonewall defending the war criminals.

More importantly, the notion that the impeachment has to be lengthy is another red herring. The Clinton farce took merely 3 mos. and that was with holiday recess and required fact witnesses and Kenny Starr's Sex Parade.

In this case the actions are admitted and "defended" by the regime. All that is required is that articles be voted by the House and Senators reject them as the abomination they are. Neither of those steps should take more than a week.

Resignations however, are more likely and even quicker.

--

If Bush should resign, do we really want Cheney in charge?

If Bush and Cheney resign, is America ready for Nancy Pelosi to take over?

If Nancy Pelosi decides not to take the spot, do we really want John Roberts in charge?

I don't know who's next in line after that, but do you see the dilemma? But it's not like I would want things to remain the same!

There's no separating bush/cheney liability and criminality. Which is why impeaching only cheney ("to make a point") is not a real option. But that won't stop it from being the LieberDems' next false move -- should they come to their senses about all these other "pressure tactics" being a big, sick joke.

If we can get to looming impeachment charges the most likely scenario would be a cheney resignation to make room for an untainted Repub to be caretaker-in-waiting. The DC-Dems would certainly "allow" that (i.e., delay the formal impeachment).

And a new VP requires full House and Senate approval. So the "new president" would hold "the consent of the governed" constitutionally. A legitimacy this regime has never had.

It really would be Redemption of The American People.

The only "dilemma" remains the refusal of the DC-Dem "leadership" to live up to their oaths of office and protect/defend the Constitution (rathere what's left of it).

--

That if the impeachment charges begin to become a reality, that Cheney would resign first?

And is there such a thing as an untainted republican?

In any case, I agree with you in that this is all dependent on the democratic leadership in DC. Will they have the balls to do this?

...will they have the balls not to do this?

They're already being openly mocked for their weakness (http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/02/16/the-daily-show-the-catastrophic-meaninglessness-of-nonbinding-resolutions/">The Daily Show) and if/when that starts showing up in polling, they might be spooked into "finding the courage."

But there are other possibilities. The Repubs could, at any time, decide that a war criminal conspiracy (as opposed to their usual criminal conspiracy) is not a tenable basis for continuing success at pretending to be a political party (Pat Buchanan has hinted at this). In that case, we'd have President NewGuy faster than you can say Bob Livingston.

As for an "untainted" caretaker, that part's easy. There's John Warner, Jack Danforth, Bill Cohen, Bob Dole or even Colin Powell (for novelty effect). Any of whom could provide the "calming effect on the nation" (translation: acceptable to the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy)

--

Where's you come up with that? You mean Robert Byrd.

And yes, Nancy Pelosi would be a fine replacement. She is the ONLY one in the entire order of succession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

For some reason I was under the impression that after the Speaker of the House was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Obviously, I got it wrong! :9

:kick:

Some of the Repubs are also bending to the Maladministration in DC. The few moderates have become much less moderate as of late.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:kick: