About impeachment.

[Kathianne]

He hasn't started a war yet and so far has been asking Congress for the go ahead. And his handling of the most incompetent military action ever devised is not as of yet an impeachable offense. Besides he probably has the cover under the War Powers Act to make the strike.

Luckily it seems that even the crazy, partisan, hacks in Congress for the most part do not go throwing impeachment around easily. Oh there are those few, but how long do they stay? I detested Clinton, knew he was lying while wagging his finger, still didn't think he should be impeached. He's still the brunt of jokes today, though considering who's now in office, there are times I wish Clinton back.

[aboutime]

Someone should just rename this thread...."The Defend Obama/Clinton Spot".

[Kathianne]

Someone should just rename this thread...."The Defend Obama/Clinton Spot".

Really.

[Arbo]

Someone should just rename this thread...."The Defend Obama/Clinton Spot".

As I said to another poster, simply knowing the truth of the matter, which others have presented repeatedly, does not make one a 'supporter' of anyone. It just means they know the reality of the law, and the reality of how government protects it's own 99.9% of the time. What you have is a weak argument.

[aboutime]

As I said to another poster, simply knowing the truth of the matter, which others have presented repeatedly, does not make one a 'supporter' of anyone. It just means they know the reality of the law, and the reality of how government protects it's own 99.9% of the time. What you have is a weak argument.

Who's arguing?

[Little-Acorn]

if the Senate doesn't think the charges are grave enough to cause removal from office, they won't vote for that.

That's not the Senate's decision to make. It's the House's.

The house votes on the content of the charges.

The Senate votes "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

Unless they fail to do their duty.

[Kathianne]

That's not the Senate's decision to make. It's the House's.

The house votes on the content of the charges.

The Senate votes "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

Unless they fail to do their duty.

Read again, it IS the Senate's job to remove him from office, by 2/3 vote.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Scandal, Impeachment , Conviction 1621, of Sir Francis Bacon Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Parliament used an old weapon , one that had lain unused for more than 300 years - the process of impeachment, by which members of the Commons serving as investigators with the Lords as judges could act against officialdom. The charge was bribery. Bacon was investigated and found guilty. His letter confessing such and basicly pleading it was common practice for all judges to take bribes , served to no avail. His defender after his conviction and banishment from ever serving in public office was Basil Montagu. He tried to exonerate Bacon by arguing that all judges in the 17 century took bribes. That was answered by an essay about Bacon, published in 1837 by Thomas McCauley. McCauley wrote, " That these practices were common, we admit. But they were common just as all wickedness to which there is strong temptation always was and always will be common. They were common , just as theft, cheating, perjury, adultery have always been common. They were common , though prohibited by law. They were common not because people did not know what was right, but because people like to do what was wrong. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to it will be great, and the chance of punishment small. But, though common, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustifiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audacity publicly to avow and defend them. Source : Horizon, Winter 1974, pages 35, 36 and 37. Article by Harvey Marshall Matusow.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The catch phrase of the day then was," Let us have law and order until it suits us to break the law." A philosophy Obama excels at replicating often. Impeachment is not a heavily used action in our history. It is a bit more complicated now than it was in England in 1621 but still the principle remains rock solid. That our Representatives are entrusted with great power to do our bidding and corruption simply can not be allowed to be a common occurrence. Obama has a great many transgressions not all of which rise to the level of impeachment but of that great many more than one does reach that level. And one is all that it takes. Our founders by way of the Constitution saw fit to include high crimes and misdemeanors in that list of transgressions that are impeachable offenses. My question is , does anybody truly believe he is not guilty of even one!!??? --Tyr

^^^^ Shown above was the first post of this thread . Some certain person should try reading it and maybe then not need to keep asking me silly questions.

[logroller]

^^^^ Shown above was the first post of this thread . Some certain person should try reading it and maybe then not need to keep asking me silly questions.

Some certain poster has asked for specifics, not generalities. You should try responding, no baiting back to a rhetorical question. A question is not an argument, nor an answer. At best its presupposition, but its not a valid argument and hardly an answer in itself.

Its rather simple: 1) cite a law; 2) show evidence of some action in violation of said law; 3) cite examples of other cases, describing their relevance.

You seem to be leaving out step one and two-- which makes your case/ argument weak.
I realize its easier to invoke the emotions of others, and while demands for impeachment can occur with this as the focus, an actual impeachment and removal from office will require a much more logical basis of support.

Stirring up fervor without the logic only further weakens the case, which people unceasingly do by calling those who ask for hard evidence, 'Obama supporters' -- informal logical fallacy-- argumentum ad hominem. If an argument is sound, one shouldn't debase it so.

[aboutime]

JUST AN ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THIS DISCUSSION:


Actually. The CHIEF JUSTICE....in this case "ROBERTS" would preside over the Senate INSTEAD of the VICE PRESIDENT.

The Supreme Court plays no role in impeachment trials. However, in the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as presiding officer of the Senate since it would be a conflict of interest to have the vice president presiding over a trial at which he would become President if the current President were to be found guilty.

[Arbo]

Some certain poster has asked for specifics, not generalities. You should try responding, no baiting back to a rhetorical question. A question is not an argument, nor an answer. At best its presupposition, but its not a valid argument and hardly an answer in itself.

Its rather simple: 1) cite a law; 2) show evidence of some action in violation of said law; 3) cite examples of other cases, describing their relevance.

You seem to be leaving out step one and two-- which makes your case/ argument weak.
I realize its easier to invoke the emotions of others, and while demands for impeachment can occur with this as the focus, an actual impeachment and removal from office will require a much more logical basis of support.

Stirring up fervor without the logic only further weakens the case, which people unceasingly do by calling those who ask for hard evidence, 'Obama supporters' -- informal logical fallacy-- argumentum ad hominem. If an argument is sound, one shouldn't debase it so.

Well said, and spot on. So as of yet, a case has not been made.

[gabosaurus]

If they didn't impeach Dubya, they won't impeach anyone. Right now, impeachment is only endorsed by right wing fanatics and attention hungry teabaggers.

[Kathianne]

If the House is determined to bring articles of impeachment, they only need to make it sound as if they are invoking laws, some articles didn't even bother to do that with Johnson. Nope, this was a case of the Radical Republicans being furious with him and like DA bringing a case to Grand jury, a ham sandwich could be indicted.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project.../articles.html

Article 10 is especially interesting to read.

Truth is, 'impeachment articles are whatever the House votes in favor of.' Then it's up to the Senate whether or not to remove from office.

I've made it quite clear where I stand on impeachment, don't think it should be 'used' to threaten presidents. The only president that I was in favor of impeaching was Nixon and he resigned rather than face that. He would have been convicted.

[Missileman]

Luckily it seems that even the crazy, partisan, hacks in Congress for the most part do not go throwing impeachment around easily. Oh there are those few, but how long do they stay? I detested Clinton, knew he was lying while wagging his finger, still didn't think he should be impeached. He's still the brunt of jokes today, though considering who's now in office, there are times I wish Clinton back.

Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for having a fling with Lewinski. His PERJURY about the matter, however, was definitely grounds for it.

[Missileman]

If they didn't impeach Dubya, they won't impeach anyone. Right now, impeachment is only endorsed by right wing fanatics and attention hungry teabaggers.

What exactly were Bush's impeachable offenses?