Does no one remember what a train-wreck H.Res 333 was?

H. Res 333 – Impeachment of Dick Cheney
Introduced April 24, 2007, referred to House Judiciary


Remember the vote on the House Floor? Remmber how the Repukes switched their votes at the end and tried to bring the resolution to a vote right there, and how Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers lost control of their colons trying to bury it in committee?

Does anyone expect the new Articles introduced by Kucinich to be any less of a debacle?

I will not be discouraged. You can surrender if you wish.

Good luck with that.

Good luck to you.

:shrug:

This particular tactic of Kucinich's is flawed, it won't work, and it could backfire. That's why I favor other tactics in regaining power from the Republicans - like, say, winning wider majorities in the fall in Congress, and taking back the White House.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

besides if we do this and are some what successful, than we can be accused of criminalizing politics.

Some can and have argued with me that Bush did not misuse info, and that his other actions may be open to interpretations.

I am no legal eagle but to me this may not be the cut and dried case we make it out to be.

Also remember how we howled about the Clinton impeachment (and I am sorry I still regard lying under oath a no-no>) think the GOP will not howl as loud.

We are going to set up a tit for tat that will last years, if we succeed.

In addition we will stand a good chance of splitting the country further.

I think cooler heads need to prevail.

He is out of office in 7 months, no need to awake the enemy.

Congress absolutely should, without reservation, impeach George W. Bush. There's no question at all that he's grossly abused his Article II powers, and that alone is grounds for impeachment. It's not about the war, which would be incredibly shaky ground to base an impeachment proceeding on. Signing statements are the clearest evidence of impeachment I can think of.

Too many people in here have no idea what impeachment really is. It's a legislative check on an overreaching executive. It's how the Constitution intended Congress to curb the executive and maintain it's own governmental perogatives.

The problem is that the House leadership utterly refuses to accept the authority granted by the Constitution to govern the country. When Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table", she directly and irrefutably violated her own oath of office.

I am unsure that signing statements in and of themselves are enough evidence to base an impeachment on. Are they in fact high crimes and misdemeanors or simply difference of political opinions.

They have been used at least since the days of FDR (maybe longer I am not sure).

You are however correct that impeachment is supposed to be a check on the chief executive.

However I am beginning to wonder how much of this is solid and how much is us wanting to get even for Clinton.

We should be careful if we criminalize politics because we now have the upper hand.

Courts have taken different opinions on what Bush has done, and the courts will/should ultimately decide what in fact is legal/illegal concerning signing statements.

To my knowledge this has never been litigated before.

My guess the SCOUS will eventually have to sort it out, by then Bush will be long out of office.

Also Speaker of the House Pelosi has not violated her oath in way shape or form, she is mearly being political in a office that is political if ever there was one.

Signing statements - As far as I know, Bush is the first president to use signing statements to undermine a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the president on the grounds that the law violates the Constitution. According to the American Bar Association, "a President's issuance of a signing statement to claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress" is unconsititutional. Other presidents have issued signing statements, but no other president has issued a signing statement like Bush's.

Pelosi's oath of office - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Consitution states "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." For the Speaker of the House to declare that a power of Congress expressly granted to the House is "off the table" is a failure to discharge the duties of the office and a violation of her oath.

High crimes and misdemeanors - I tend to agree with Doug Feith on this (which kills me to do), but he said something to the effect that high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the House thinks the Senate can prove. Presidental usurpation of Congressional power (i.e. signing statments that clearly negate a duly passed law) is a high crime against the Constitution itself.

It's not up to the Courts to try the President, it's up to the Senate. The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments.

My job is different than theirs. :shrug:

I just prefer that the alleged standard-bearers of the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives not look like the complete jackasses that they are.

I, for one, have no illusions when it comes to what effect DK's resolution will have. I'd just like to avoid showing the world (once again) what completely ineffectual dunderheads the House leadership is.

:)

We don't have stocks any more but at least we have C-SPAN Theatre.

:hi:

That's the part that's confounding me.


I don't know, I believe DK's heart is absolutely in the right place. I wish it weren't so futile, but I can't forget how badly we (Democrats) got burned over 333. It was disgusting.

:hi: peace

In some real sense, it's just counting coup on the enemy. That's what we have right now.

call our congressman to table?

That's when the repukes changed their votes. It was a powerful demonstration of the worthlessness of Steny Hoyer.

that we can agree on

But they're clearly not interested. Which is exactly why 333 turned into the farce that it did. This has all the potential to do the same thing.

There will be a vote on impeachment now. It'll be a horrible disaster, just like before.

:cry: It's just infuriating and frustrating as all get out.

When the Judiciary committee return them to the House. That's when the republicans will say, Oh shit! The white house will emerge with several hundred cases of depends. Depends on what you mean by torture. Depends on what you mean by war crimes. Depends on what you mean by.......etc. etc.

Has the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties taken any action at all on H. Res 333?

No. Not a thing. Not one hearing, not one meeting, not one single thing.

But, to be fair, they've only had the resolution for a year.

They just aren't specifically tagging the investigations Res. 333. That way they don't have to fight the republicans on the committee tooth & nail over every word.

before it began, either. Why is this bad person always trying to go against the will of our brave and heroic pResident, when he knows that our great leader will always prevail in every contest with Democrats?
:sarcasm:
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive magazine, November 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.
snip---
America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.
snip---
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Path.html

Sorry about the sarcasm, but I'm really getting tired of Democrats denouncing our best elected leaders for at least trying to do the right thing. Few Democrats stood behind Dennis when he opposed the war, and look what happened - hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and maimed.

Democrats need to unite against monsters like Bu*h and Cheney - not appease them so that they can continue to commit criminal acts at will.

Why is it "appeasement" to say that a tactic which we know beyond any doubt DOES NOT WORK may not be the best idea ever?

I'm all for unity. I don't see why that necessitates being lemmings running over the same cliff we've run over before.

We know this doesn't work. It was categorically proven not to work when DK introduced the Articles against Cheney.

Ignoring the obvious doesn't make the obvious go away. I'm sure of that.

Yet it always did.

hey, it had to happen sometime.

:toast:

:shrug:

neener.

Solamente borracho.