On the unitary executive

[bullypulpit]

For most Americans the term "unitary executive"has little meaning. The application of that formerly obscure school of political thought, however, has implications for all of us, and none of them good.

The foundation of this theory rests upon the "Vesting clause" of the Constitution which states, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.", as well as the "Take care" clause. This latter states, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."

The argument is, in essence, that all executive power lies in the hands of the presidency, and any attempt by either the legislative or judicial branches to exercise oversight or place limits on the power of the executive are unconstitutional.

This theory has its roots as far back as the founding of the country, but it has never been as aggressively pursued as it has by the current Bush administration, which sees the theory as the basis for nearly unlimited executive power. And while this theory may have been examined by the founders it was discarded in favor of the separation of powers.

This separation of powers was deliberate, in that the Founders knew all too well what happened when all power was concentrated in one set of hands, having only just thrown off the yoke of such a ruler. This separation of powers was not simply meant to be symbolic either as it is a cornerstone of the Republic. James Madison wrote in <b>The Federalist Papers, No. 47, Para. 4</b>,

<blockquote>The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.</blockquote>

This is a clear and unequivocal contradiction of any claims the Bush administration and its supporters might make regarding the intentions of the Founders towards the accumulation of power in any one branch of government.

It is also worth noting that this aggressive assertion of unitary executive theory flies in the face of traditional conservative suspicion towards a strong executive. Due to the efforts of Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and others, unitary executive theory has become central to conservative ideology.

This assertion of unchecked presidential power by the Bush administration can be seen in numerous instances. In the case of Jose Padilla, a US citizen, the administration usurped <i>habeas corpus</i> by taking Padilla into custody on US soil and holding him without charge or access to counsel for nearly three years. In ordering the NSA to undertake a program of eavesdropping on US citizens absent a warrant, in direct violation of federal law, the Bush administration effectively held itself to be above the law. In seeking legal sanction for torture, in direct conflict with US and international law and treaty obligations, the Administration asserted authority to act unilaterally and without congressional oversight in any manner it sees fit in the name of "national security".

Past presidents have attempted to assert a more energetic presidency, some with success, some without. Thomas Jefferson successfully expanded the authority of the President to appoint judges in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Abraham Lincoln suspended <i>habeas corpus</i>. Theodore Roosevelt expanded presidential powers, but only to the extent which hose powers did not conflict with prohibitions enumerated under the Constitution or by federal statute. Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans. Harry Trueman attempted to prevent a strike during the Korean War with Executive Order 10430. And, of course, the Nixon administration and its program of domestic surveillance and burglaries.

The key difference between past successes and failures, to expand presidential authority, and the Bush administrations attempts to do so, lies in the fact that these attempts were open to legislative and judicial scrutiny. They could be upheld or overturned based upon the review of these assertions of presidential power under the law. The Bush administration vigorously, some would say aggressively, obstructs any attempt at legislative or judicial review of its assertion of executive power. Such actions make it abundantly clear that the Bush administration sees the doctrine of the "unitary executive" as providing all the justification it needs to ignore, overrule, or bypass entirely, either Congress or the courts. This based solely on the interpretation, by Bush and other members of his administration, of the Constitution...Even when those interpretations usurp federal law and treaty obligations and even those bills which he signed into law.

In 1939, a young German constitutional lawyer explained the power claimed by Hitler as "Leader", in the following manner:

<blockquote>The authority of the Leader is total and all-embracing: within it all resources available to the body politic merge; it covers every facet of the life of the people; it embraces all members of the German community pledged to loyalty and obedience to the leader. The Leaders authority <i><b>is subject to no checks or controls; it is circumscribed by no private preserves of jealously guarded individual rights; it is free and independent, overriding and unfettered.</b></i>(<i>emphasis mine</i>) - Richard J. Evans, <b>The Third Reich In Power</b>, pg 44, Penguin Books, 2005, ISBN 0-14-303790-0</blockquote>

There is Striking similarity between this assertion of executive power in pre-WWII Germany and the assertions of executive power made by the Bush administration and its supporters. In both cases, the executive can disregard the legislative and judicial processes in pursuit of its goals; the rule of law becomes an irrelevancy.

Writing in <i>Common Sense</i>, Thomas Paine stated that,

<blockquote>"...in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."</blockquote>

In asserting the unfettered power of a "unitary executive", President Bush and his administration, are asserting that they, not Congress nor the judiciary, are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not lawful. In doing so, they usurp the rule of law and the law is no longer king.

Sources:

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory>Unitary Executive Theory</a>

<a href=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/03/060703fa_fact1?printable=true>The Hidden Power</a>

<a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html>The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?</a>

<a href=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060105.html>How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"?</a>

<a href=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_47.html>Federalist No. 47</a>

<a href=http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html>Common Sense</a>

[truthmatters]

This entire neocon cabal which currently controls the Republican party has lied and lied to the republican rank and file for years now and there is arround28% of them who dont seem to get it or care. Party name is all they seem to need and facts and reality cant get through to them. I just dont understand how anyone can be so unwilling to face reality.

[jimnyc]

This entire neocon cabal which currently controls the Republican party has lied and lied to the republican rank and file for years now and there is arround28% of them who dont seem to get it or care.

That's odd, cause I recently read that 47% of all Democrat politicians have lied to their constituents at least 2x and that 66% of the people fell for their lies. Odd that we get differing information.

[5stringJeff]

In that the military held Padilla without habeus corpus, and in that the Executive Department established a domestic spying program without adhering to the Fourth Amendment, yes, he went outside the law. But we are nowhere near "pre WWII Germany" in that we have a Congress and a Supreme Court who are the checks and balances against the executive branch overstepping its boundaries.

[truthmatters]

they are not getting it.

[5stringJeff]

they are not getting it.

Not getting what? That the Constitution allows for three co-equal branches to check and balance each other? That Bush has overstepped his bounds on two occasions?

[jimnyc]

they are not getting it.

Why do you not care that you are lied to by so many Democrats?

Do you not care that so many in your party believe the proven lies?

[truthmatters]

Deflect all you want.

I just dont understand why you refuse to face the facts.

Why dont you provide a link to your so called facts?

[manu1959]

Deflect all you want.

I just dont understand why you refuse to face the facts.

Why dont you provide a link to your so called facts?

as jeff said there are three equal parts to our govt.....

how about you provide a link that the other two have been abolished....

how about the fact that on both occasisions that bush overstepped his bounds the other two parts checked him and corrected the issues......

keep crying wolf.....

[truthmatters]

http://democrats.senate.gov/judiciarycommitteesupremecourt/correcting-12.cfm



President Bush is currently using signing statements and the theory of the unitary executive to expand his power. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bush has cited the “Unitary Executive” 103 times in presidential signing statements. “In written statements issued when he signs legislation, Mr. Bush routinely cites his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" to disregard bill provisions he considers objectionable. A statement Mr. Bush issued on Dec. 30 when he signed Sen. John McCain's anti-torture amendment, for example, said in part that the executive branch "shall construe" a portion of the act relating to detainees "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." The statement raised questions among critics of the Administration's policies about the extent to which the White House considers itself bound by the legislation.” [WSJ, 1/5/06] By using the unitary executive theory by name, which Judge Alito supported, this President was able to justify his view that he does not need to follow the very law he was signing..








http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html



President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means.

What Does the Administration Mean When It Refers to the "Unitary Executive"?

Dr. Kelley notes that the unitary executive doctrine arose as the result of the twin circumstances of Vietnam and Watergate. Kelley asserts that "the faith and trust placed into the presidency was broken as a result of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate," which resulted in a congressional assault on presidential prerogatives.

For example, consider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which Bush evaded when authorizing the NSA to tap without warrants -- even those issued by the FISA court. FISA was enacted after the fall of Nixon with the precise intention of curbing unchecked executive branch surveillance. (Indeed, Nixon's improper use of domestic surveillance was included in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the impeachment articles against him.)

According to Kelley, these congressional limits on the presidency, in turn, led "some very creative people" in the White House and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to fight back, in an attempt to foil or blunt these limits. In their view, these laws were legislative attempts to strip the president of his rightful powers. Prominent among those in the movement to preserve presidential power and champion the unitary executive doctrine were the founding members of the Federalist Society, nearly all of whom worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan White Houses.

The unitary executive doctrine arises out of a theory called "departmentalism," or "coordinate construction." According to legal scholars Christopher Yoo, Steven Calabresi, and Anthony Colangelo, the coordinate construction approach "holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." According to this theory, the president may (and indeed, must) interpret laws, equally as much as the courts.




I fully realise you will never read and or understand what these links are talking about. It is really for others who are willing to embrace the truth.

[truthmatters]

gee I guess the fact that the admin uses the term themselfs to discribe their actions kinda killed the debate huh?

[actsnoblemartin]

lobbyists and congress people

[truthmatters]

They talk states rights to the rank and file and work towards the unitary executive in all their actions.

When will the people who cling to them learn of their lies?

[actsnoblemartin]

what you just said is confusing, and this whole thread is confusing

bottom line: you think one branch is trying to destroy or take away the others?


They talk states rights to the rank and file and work towards the unitary executive in all their actions.

When will the people who cling to them learn of their lies?

[truthmatters]

This neocon admin had a goal to make the presidency stronger than the congress. They have taken actions to insure the presidency can over ride the will of the people through congress. The republican party has always been big on state power. The houses congress give more power to the states. They are trying to make it an imperial presidency.

[Kathianne]

This neocon admin had a goal to make the presidency stronger than the congress. They have taken actions to insure the presidency can over ride the will of the people through congress. The republican party has always been big on state power. The houses congress give more power to the states. They are trying to make it an imperial presidency.

Which was the last executive that tried to give up power? Can you think of any ways the legislature has chosen to abdicate power to the executive?

[truthmatters]

Roots in the 1970s

The current debate about presidential power has its roots in the 1970s, when Congress and courts responded to controversial and in some cases illegal practices of the Nixon White House. New laws curtailing presidential power were enacted. The Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could not be barred from publishing leaked classified documents on the Vietnam War, the attorney general could not wiretap suspected subversives without a warrant, and Mr. Nixon had to surrender transcripts of his secret White House tapes to a Watergate special prosecutor.

Lawyers working under Mr. Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, "began looking at ways they could advance presidential powers in ways that wouldn't raise the alarm bells it did during the Nixon administration," says Christopher Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Leading that effort was Antonin Scalia, who headed the Ford administration's Office of Legal Counsel and today sits on the Supreme Court.

The push to extend presidential powers continued into the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, in part to contend with Congress when it was controlled by Democrats. The Clinton administration asserted a similar authority over government agencies, particularly after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.

In March, the current administration's efforts to further expand presidential authority may face another test at the Supreme Court. It has agreed to hear a challenge to the president's plan to try suspected foreign terrorists at Guantanamo before military commissions, a type of special court created by the president in which defendants have limited rights. At issue, among other things, is whether the Geneva Convention affords the Guantanamo prisoners further legal protections.

Last month, Congress approved legislation intended to protect prisoners, in part by providing them with limited rights to appeal. The administration is expected to cite that legislation in an effort to head off the Supreme Court review.


The use of unitary executive in governance

Reagan it once

Ghwb used it 6 times

Clinton used it 0 times

GWB used it 110 times

[Kathianne]

TM, you are not answering my question, the post before your last.

[truthmatters]

None has USED these tactics to get a strangle hold on the country and our representatives as much as GWB.

If you want to prove no one has ever given up any excecutive power do your own research.

[Kathianne]

None has USED these tactics to get a strangle hold on the country and our representatives as much as GWB.

If you want to prove no one has ever given up any excecutive power do your own research.

Oh, I have. Dodging is not the way to answer, btw.

[truthmatters]

The use of unitary executive in governance

Reagan it once

Ghwb used it 6 times

Clinton used it 0 times

GWB used it 110 times


This is plenty to prove the point about Bush and the unitary executive usage.

I never claimed someone gave up power so its not my point but your point hence me saying do your own research.

[5stringJeff]

http://democrats.senate.gov/judiciarycommitteesupremecourt/correcting-12.cfm



President Bush is currently using signing statements and the theory of the unitary executive to expand his power. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bush has cited the “Unitary Executive” 103 times in presidential signing statements. “In written statements issued when he signs legislation, Mr. Bush routinely cites his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" to disregard bill provisions he considers objectionable. A statement Mr. Bush issued on Dec. 30 when he signed Sen. John McCain's anti-torture amendment, for example, said in part that the executive branch "shall construe" a portion of the act relating to detainees "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." The statement raised questions among critics of the Administration's policies about the extent to which the White House considers itself bound by the legislation.” [WSJ, 1/5/06] By using the unitary executive theory by name, which Judge Alito supported, this President was able to justify his view that he does not need to follow the very law he was signing..


I fully realise you will never read and or understand what these links are talking about. It is really for others who are willing to embrace the truth.

It still remains that, even if Bush chooses to use signing statements, that the Supreme Court can still invalidate the principles contained in them, or Congress can pass additional legislation specifically negating anything in a signing statement.

[truthmatters]

And it also means a compliant R party let him get away with it for years.

What will you think of these policies if they are applied by a democratic president?

[bullypulpit]

Not getting what? That the Constitution allows for three co-equal branches to check and balance each other? That Bush has overstepped his bounds on two occasions?

More than two occasions. Every time he issues a signing statement with a bill he signs into law, he oversteps his constitutional authority, particularly in those instances where he used the unitary executive theory to justify his actions.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The use of unitary executive in governance

Reagan it once

Ghwb used it 6 times

Clinton used it 0 times

GWB used it 110 times


This is plenty to prove the point about Bush and the unitary executive usage.

I never claimed someone gave up power so its not my point but your point hence me saying do your own research.

The number of times that US soil was attacked during those other administrations: 0

I think circumstances have changed, and as a result the POTUS must use every authority afforded him under the law, as he sees fit, whether it is a Dem Rep or Disco Party member.

[truthmatters]

I dont agree.

He or she should be bound by the limmits to their power as afforded by the constitution and the people sof the United States.

I dont want a dictator no matter what.

This country can survive this without destroying our democracy.

[5stringJeff]

More than two occasions. Every time he issues a signing statement with a bill he signs into law, he oversteps his constitutional authority, particularly in those instances where he used the unitary executive theory to justify his actions.

Signing statements are not necessarily unconstitutional. Every President, as chief executive, does some interpreting of the law. If a particular signing statement oversteps the bounds of the President's authority, and it's brought before the Supreme Court, they can easily overturn it.

[5stringJeff]

The number of times that US soil was attacked during those other administrations: 0

I think circumstances have changed, and as a result the POTUS must use every authority afforded him under the law, as he sees fit, whether it is a Dem Rep or Disco Party member.


I dont agree.

He or she should be bound by the limmits to their power as afforded by the constitution and the people sof the United States.

I dont want a dictator no matter what.

This country can survive this without destroying our democracy.

You're both saying roughly the same thing, and you're both right. The President's power is defined and limited by the Constitution, as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. Additionally, if Congress delegates power to the President by law, and in accordance with the Constitution, he has those powers as well.

[truthmatters]

Nope this is wrong. The 1993 WTC bombing took place like 30 days into Clintons first term. We were then not attacked on our own soil until Bush because president and 9 months into his term we were attacked.

Clinton Did not have to destroy the constitution to protect us all those eight years.

[bullypulpit]

The number of times that US soil was attacked during those other administrations: 0

I think circumstances have changed, and as a result the POTUS must use every authority afforded him under the law, as he sees fit, whether it is a Dem Rep or Disco Party member.

And if the POTUS takes actions outside the bounds of the law...If the POTUS claims authority beyond the constitutional limitations of the office...If the POTUS unilaterally violates US treaty obligations which, under the Constitution, have the full force of federal law...Do we simply stand mutely by and watch? Or do we demand an accounting? Do we remain a nation of laws? Or do we become a dictatorship?

What happens if the next president, Republican or Democrat fails to restore the constitutional balance this Administration has cavalierly tossed aside? No President, Democrat or Republican, can be allowed to forswear their oath of office and escape the consequences. In allowing them to do so, we put the Republic at risk and the Constitution becomes nothing more than the "god-damned piece of paper" Bush so bitterly railed about.

[Dilloduck]

And if the POTUS takes actions outside the bounds of the law...If the POTUS claims authority beyond the constitutional limitations of the office...If the POTUS unilaterally violates US treaty obligations which, under the Constitution, have the full force of federal law...Do we simply stand mutely by and watch? Or do we demand an accounting? Do we remain a nation of laws? Or do we become a dictatorship?

What happens if the next president, Republican or Democrat fails to restore the constitutional balance this Administration has cavalierly tossed aside? No President, Democrat or Republican, can be allowed to forswear their oath of office and escape the consequences. In allowing them to do so, we put the Republic at risk and the Constitution becomes nothing more than the "god-damned piece of paper" Bush so bitterly railed about.

Whoever is responsible for not busting the president when he breaks the law should get his ass kicked---would that do it for ya ,Bully ?

[truthmatters]

And when the next president tries to abuse it and us dems speak up what will you say?

You will not give the dems credit at that time yet I bet you do not care that your own party ignored this for years. No oversight was ever brough to bear on Bush and it was solely the Republican parties fault.

[Dilloduck]

And when the next president tries to abuse it and us dems speak up what will you say?

You will not give the dems credit at that time yet I bet you do not care that your own party ignored this for years. No oversight was ever brough to bear on Bush and it was solely the Republican parties fault.

We know---Republicans bad--Democrats good. Are you really old?

[truthmatters]

So when I speak out if the next president is a dem and tries to use the signing statements in the same way you will say that too?

You really dont get it do you?

[Dilloduck]

So when I speak out if the next president is a dem and tries to use the signing statements in the same way you will say that too?

You really dont get it do you?

I'll probably ask you if you are old until you answer me. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

you gonna stomp your little feet and scream too?

I just turned 50 make of it what you will.

How old are you?

[jimnyc]

you gonna stomp your little feet and scream too?

I just turned 50 make of it what you will.

How old are you?

50 with the mental capacity of a roasted walnut.

[truthmatters]

Oh how cute he can call names.

[jimnyc]

Oh how cute he can call names.

That's all that's left when trying to discuss anything of substance with someone who obviously has learning deficiencies such as yourself.

[Dilloduck]

you gonna stomp your little feet and scream too?

I just turned 50 make of it what you will.

How old are you?

Got you beat--I just turned 56---Wanna dance youngster ??:dance:

[truthmatters]

Why not giove it a try Jiminy?

Adress the real thread subject and see how long you can go without reverting into a teenager in a pissing contest?



Here how about starting here?

Roots in the 1970s

The current debate about presidential power has its roots in the 1970s, when Congress and courts responded to controversial and in some cases illegal practices of the Nixon White House. New laws curtailing presidential power were enacted. The Supreme Court ruled that newspapers could not be barred from publishing leaked classified documents on the Vietnam War, the attorney general could not wiretap suspected subversives without a warrant, and Mr. Nixon had to surrender transcripts of his secret White House tapes to a Watergate special prosecutor.

Lawyers working under Mr. Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, "began looking at ways they could advance presidential powers in ways that wouldn't raise the alarm bells it did during the Nixon administration," says Christopher Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Leading that effort was Antonin Scalia, who headed the Ford administration's Office of Legal Counsel and today sits on the Supreme Court.

The push to extend presidential powers continued into the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, in part to contend with Congress when it was controlled by Democrats. The Clinton administration asserted a similar authority over government agencies, particularly after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.

In March, the current administration's efforts to further expand presidential authority may face another test at the Supreme Court. It has agreed to hear a challenge to the president's plan to try suspected foreign terrorists at Guantanamo before military commissions, a type of special court created by the president in which defendants have limited rights. At issue, among other things, is whether the Geneva Convention affords the Guantanamo prisoners further legal protections.

Last month, Congress approved legislation intended to protect prisoners, in part by providing them with limited rights to appeal. The administration is expected to cite that legislation in an effort to head off the Supreme Court review.


The use of unitary executive in governance

Reagan it once

Ghwb used it 6 times

Clinton used it 0 times

GWB used it 110 times


http://democrats.senate.gov/judiciarycommitteesupremecourt/correcting-12.cfm

[jimnyc]

Why not giove it a try Jiminy?

Adress the real thread subject and see how long you can go without reverting into a teenager in a pissing contest?

Again, I don't waste my time with shitheads who bail when the going gets rough. When you are ready to backup your statement from many months ago, or admit you misspoke, then I'll go forth. Until then a fruitcake like you deserves nothing but to get laughed at like the little drooling retard in the corner of the classroom.

[truthmatters]

Oh man what a load of evasiveness when it comes to real discussion.

[Dilloduck]

Oh man what a load of evasiveness when it comes to real discussion.

No joke----you gonna dance with me or not?:poke:

[truthmatters]

Sure adress the subject of the thread.

[Dilloduck]

Sure adress the subject of the thread.

waltz--polka--cha cha ?? quit feeling down and out--you're just hitting your prime !!

[truthmatters]

never said I was down.

Are you imagining things again?

[Dilloduck]

never said I was down.

Are you imagining things again?

Just you and me dancing under the stars !!! :wink2:

[5stringJeff]

You will not give the dems credit at that time yet I bet you do not care that your own party ignored this for years. No oversight was ever brough to bear on Bush and it was solely the Republican parties fault.

And now that the Democrats are in power, guess what? No one is pushing for impeachment, which would be one of Congress's options. No one is redrafting legislation specifically to address any of Bush's signing statements, which is another Congressional perogative. So while the GOP may not have done anything, the Dems aren't either.

[truthmatters]

And now that the Democrats are in power, guess what? No one is pushing for impeachment, which would be one of Congress's options. No one is redrafting legislation specifically to address any of Bush's signing statements, which is another Congressional perogative. So while the GOP may not have done anything, the Dems aren't either.

What number do you have to have for impeachment in the senate?



http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm



Its 2/3rds. They will not waste the time on a impeachment which will just be thwarted by the Rs for political reasons.

[5stringJeff]

What number do you have to have for impeachment in the senate?



http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm



Its 2/3rds. They will not waste the time on a impeachment which will just be thwarted by the Rs for political reasons.

The House impeaches, on a simple majority, which the Democrats have. The Senate finds guilt on a 2/3rds majority. So the House could impeach, even if they couldn't convict.

[JohnDoe]

The House impeaches, on a simple majority, which the Democrats have. The Senate finds guilt on a 2/3rds majority. So the House could impeach, even if they couldn't convict. That just seems so wrong though, to impeach in the house while KNOWING the Senate would not convict him of said impeachment..... I know the republicans must have believed that this was ok at one time, for them to impeach Clinton, knowing that he would not get the 2/3's in the Senate to convict him of the aledged impeachment crimes but i guess I personally do not agree with wasting the tax payer's dime or citizen's time if he is not going to be convicted of the crimes by the Senate, and this is KNOWN upfront.

jd

[truthmatters]

They wont waste the time which would end in nothing but a losing endevor. If they did think of how hard the Rs would scream. Even though they did just that for a minor infraction.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The House impeaches, on a simple majority, which the Democrats have. The Senate finds guilt on a 2/3rds majority. So the House could impeach, even if they couldn't convict.

Just as Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED.

[bullypulpit]

Just as Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED.

Lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office is in no way comparable to the undermining of the Constitution, flouting federal law and international treaty.

Unfortunately, congressional leadership in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle are more interested in furthering their political fortunes than they are in doing their duties. Duties which the Constitution and their oath of office require of them.

[bullypulpit]

Whoever is responsible for not busting the president when he breaks the law should get his ass kicked---would that do it for ya ,Bully ?

Those in Congress, Republican AND Democrat, who have simply stood by while this president and his administration have ridden roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law are equally culpable.

[actsnoblemartin]

please provide specific examples


Those in Congress, Republican AND Democrat, who have simply stood by while this president and his administration have ridden roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law are equally culpable.

[bullypulpit]

We know---Republicans bad--Democrats good. Are you really old?

Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican, old son. Abuse of power is abuse of power, and it simply cannot be tolerated. If the next President, of either party, fails to restore the constitutional balance upset by this administration, they will be aiding and abetting this nation's slide towards a fascist state. Or is it OK if a Republican does it but not a Democrat?

[bullypulpit]

please provide specific examples

Nancy Pelosi takes impeachment off the table.

Six years of zero, zip, nada, in the way of congressional oversight of the Bush administration by the GOP controlled Congress.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

When under oath, a LIE is a LIE....I don't differentiate sex from smuggling or anything else when it comes to lying, I am glad to know you do. Our nations highest elected official LIED under OATH, and was IMPEACHED....good enough for me.

AS for GWB.....there will be no impeachment hearings.....sorry things didn't work out for you and your agenda.


Lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office is in no way comparable to the undermining of the Constitution, flouting federal law and international treaty.

Unfortunately, congressional leadership in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle are more interested in furthering their political fortunes than they are in doing their duties. Duties which the Constitution and their oath of office require of them.

[Dilloduck]

Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican, old son. Abuse of power is abuse of power, and it simply cannot be tolerated. If the next President, of either party, fails to restore the constitutional balance upset by this administration, they will be aiding and abetting this nation's slide towards a fascist state. Or is it OK if a Republican does it but not a Democrat?

Are you suggesting that someone take action to stop this ? If so, who ?

[truthmatters]

Just as Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED.

Which was a huge waste of tax payer money just as the YEARS of whitewater investigations which turned up not one god damned thing because it was completetly politcal.

So the republicans are heros to you for using the time they should have used to improve our country and make us safe from say Islamic terror from people like OBL and used it to to whip Clinton even though they knew they would never get a conviction.

But the Dems are what for not wasting the peoples time and money with political stunts?

The man should have been impeached for more than one offense but the republican party has no morals left on which to make a right decision because they are the party of money and not morals.

[truthmatters]

Are you suggesting that someone take action to stop this ? If so, who ?

I guess it s going to be Obama?

You can bet he wont have hundereds of signing statements saying he doesnt thave to obey the laws he doesnt like.

[Dilloduck]

I guess it s going to be Obama?

You can bet he wont have hundereds of siging statements saying he doesnt thave to obey the laws he doesnt like.

Great !!! Vote for him !!

[truthmatters]

I just might and I think Im going to have LOTS of company.

[Dilloduck]

I just might and I think Im going to have LOTS of company.

There ya go. That's how to get things done !!!

[jimnyc]

Which was a huge waste of tax payer money just as the YEARS of whitewater investigations which turned up not one god damned thing because it was completetly politcal.

Absolutely hilarious! This idiot registers as "Truthmatters" and then complains because someone was investigated and impeached for lying!

I guess you believe anytime a politician from the leading congressional party commits a crime they should be ignored simply because their party is in the majority?

You have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in the truth. You are simply a political hack for the Democrat party, and they should be embarrassed for having an illiterate speaking out for them.

[truthmatters]

Absolutely hilarious! This idiot registers as "Truthmatters" and then complains because someone was investigated and impeached for lying!

I guess you believe anytime a politician from the leading congressional party commits a crime they should be ignored simply because their party is in the majority?

You have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in the truth. You are simply a political hack for the Democrat party, and they should be embarrassed for having an illiterate speaking out for them.I did not complain because they investigated I complained because they were investigated for YEARS when it was already apparent there was no there there.

What exactly did they find after like 6 years of investigation and millions of dollars?

[Dilloduck]

I did not complain because they investigated I complained because they were investigated for YEARS when it was already apparent there was no there there.

What exactly did they find after like 6 years of investigation and millions of dollars?

So it's only fair to waste millions of dollars investigating Bush ?

[truthmatters]

So it's only fair to waste millions of dollars investigating Bush ?


I wouold have loved to have a independent counsil over the last 7 years because the republican congresses of the last few years did no oversight of anything. It was their job to do oversight and they refused to do it because of politics. They knew if they investigated they would have to impeach him for his actions so they solved it by refusing to do their sworn duties.

[Dilloduck]

I wouold have loved to have a independent counsil over the last 7 years because the republican congresses of the last few years did no oversight of anything. It was their job to do oversight and they refused to do it because of politics. They knew if they investigated they would have to impeach him for his actions so they solved it by refusing to do their sworn duties.

Just goes to show ya---Republicans==BAD Democrats===GOOD !!

[jimnyc]

I did not complain because they investigated I complained because they were investigated for YEARS when it was already apparent there was no there there.

What exactly did they find after like 6 years of investigation and millions of dollars?

No "there there"? What the hell does that mean?

And what we found out from the investigation is that we had a president who had the audacity to lie while under oath. This is perhaps the most sacred oath that one could break, but you think it's fine even though you claim to demand the "truth" from our politicians.

Your claims about the truth only apply when you complain about Republicans. You are sad.

[truthmatters]

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=990

you can go here to learn about oversight.


jiminy , lying about having an affair is done how often by how many people in court everyday in America. BTW his lie effected no American life. Bush lied to get Americans killed and that is worth a little investigation in comparison dont you think?

[jimnyc]

jiminy , lying about having an affair is done how often by how many people in court everyday in America. BTW his lie effected no American life. Bush lied to get Americans killed and that is worth a little investigation in comparison dont you think?

I don't care about how many lowlifes lie in court daily, but it's a big deal when the POTUS does so under oath. And although you claim to demand the truth you are now making any excuse you can to excuse Clinton for doing what you "supposedly" despise.

And you haven't A SINGLE lie you can factually attribute to GWB. Incorrect intelligence doesn't equate to a lie, nor do opinions from people selling books and political pundits. Your attempt to claim non-existent lies got people killed is only your way of avoiding the fact that you excuse the lies and fraud from the Democrat side while trying to dig up any little piece of garbage you can on the other side of the aisle. EVERY member on this board has agreed at one time or another that the lies, fraud and bullshit comes from both sides, but the one person who posts with the moniker "truthmatters" only cares about things she doesn't like from the Republicans while giving a pass to the same exact bullshit from her own pathetic party.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

jiminy , lying about having an affair is done how often by how many people in court everyday in America. BTW his lie effected no American life. Bush lied to get Americans killed and that is worth a little investigation in comparison dont you think?

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.

Lying is Lying....end of story, it speaks volumes about your character if you think that any lie is worth overlooking.

[truthmatters]

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.

Lying is Lying....end of story, it speaks volumes about your character if you think that any lie is worth overlooking.

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

[jimnyc]

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Nice comeback, idiot! So you're saying that since regular citizens do wrong that the POTUS should be allowed to lie under oath?

[truthmatters]

No what I said is he sinned and he was punished. To think any president has not lied about something is to think presidents are not human. The republicans made hay out of it. Bush lied us into war and people died and they refused to investigate anything. I wish they would have cared as much about the loss of life as they did about Clintons personal life. The democrats are not wasting the American peoples dollars on an impeachment which they know the Rs wont let be desided fairly so they instead tend to the bussiness that really needs to be done. If the Republicans ( like Newt and Scarbourgh who were doing the same thing and and lying too) had used the same judgement they may have been able to do something to prevent 911 instead of wasting our time and money.

[jimnyc]

No what I said is he sinned and he was punished. To think any president has not lied about something is to think presidents are not human. The republicans made hay out of it. Bush lied us into war and people died and they refused to investigate anything. I wish they would have cared as much about the loss of life as they did about Clintons personal life. The democrats are not wasting the American peoples dollars on an impeachment which they know the Rs wont let be desided fairly so they instead tend to the bussiness that really needs to be done. If the Republicans ( like Newt and Scarbourgh who were doing the same thing and and lying too) had used the same judgement they may have been able to do something to prevent 911 instead of wasting our time and money.

Give is the specific lies that GWB told...

[truthmatters]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYb9rf2BBQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNws6IG696M&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs&NR=1

[jimnyc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYb9rf2BBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNws6IG696M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs&NR=1

:lol:

I ask you for specifics and the best you can do is link to other peoples lame work on youtube? :laugh2:

A few of them don't even have GWB in them at all. Did you even bother to watch them before linking to them, or was it that my question was too hard for you? Nor did I hear any legitimate lies in in there, just short clips of things taken out of context by kids likely.

Sorry, TM, but if you want to be taken seriously you're going to have to start posting like you have a brain of your own. I know it's difficult for you, but try. Why must every answer of yours be a link of some sort, are you afraid that if you try writing your own thoughts you will look like an idiot?

Pssstttt... You already do!