Newsweek: Most Americans support impeachment, GOP numbers continue to crumble - Page 4

JaJae · 10-24-2006, 06:57 PM

That's exactly what I was thinking when I read it.

Diamond Cross · 10-25-2006, 12:32 AM

So when have we ever had a competant president since WW II.

7960 · 10-25-2006, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So when have we ever had a competant president since WW II.

Why stop there? "Most people" agree that the last "good" president was Washington... apparently roosevelt sucked, lincoln raped the constitution, and madison and monroe were idiots.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify impeachment, especially since nobody can point to an actual law bush broke.

WickedLou9 · 10-25-2006, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Why stop there? "Most people" agree that the last "good" president was Washington... apparently roosevelt sucked, lincoln raped the constitution, and madison and monroe were idiots.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify impeachment, especially since nobody can point to an actual law bush broke.

He violated the supreme law of the land.. the US constitution... when he authorized warrantless wiretapping. A clear violation of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The american BAR association agrees that it violated the constitution.
Good enough for me. Bush Swore an oath to uphold the constitution. He violated that oath.

7960 · 10-25-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

He violated the supreme law of the land.. the US constitution... when he authorized warrantless wiretapping. A clear violation of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The american BAR association agrees that it violated the constitution.
Good enough for me. Bush Swore an oath to uphold the constitution. He violated that oath.

I don't care what the bar association says. What does the supreme court say?

WickedLou9 · 10-25-2006, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't care what the bar association says. What does the supreme court say?

Have they ruled on it? A federal judge has...

Gulfnews: US government appeals court's wiretapping verdict

Washington: The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal judge's ruling this summer that a controversial post-September 11, 2001, domestic spying programme was illegal.

So far one Federal judge has also said that it's illegal.

WickedLou9 · 10-25-2006, 10:28 AM

also, how can you not care what the BAR thinks? They are certainly legal experts with an understanding of the law that far exceeds you or I or anyone here on this board.

garbagemanlb · 10-25-2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Have they ruled on it? A federal judge has...

Gulfnews: US government appeals court's wiretapping verdict

So far one Federal judge has also said that it's illegal.

What you don't understand is that he is an activist liberal judge.

nbiggershaft · 10-25-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't care what the bar association says. What does the supreme court say?

Yeah, screw those independent legal experts. I want to hear the opinion of a legal body hired mostly by republican presidents.

Again, I think we are talking should, not what is going to happen.

7960 · 10-25-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Yeah, screw those independent legal experts. I want to hear the opinion of a legal body hired mostly by republican presidents.

I'm not going back to find it now but an article I read pointed out decisions made by "republican justices" and it showed they don't have a bias toward conservative causes. But you can keep slinging that "hired by....." stuff all you want and hope some sticks.

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

What you don't understand is that he is an activist liberal judge.

Definition of an activist judge: a judge who disagrees with you

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Why stop there? "Most people" agree that the last "good" president was Washington... apparently roosevelt sucked, lincoln raped the constitution, and madison and monroe were idiots.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify impeachment, especially since nobody can point to an actual law bush broke.

He doesn't have to break a law to be impeached. How many times you going to say the same wrong bullshit?

JaJae · 10-25-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He doesn't have to break a law to be impeached. How many times you going to say the same wrong bullshit?

You need evidence of a law broken to impeach. You can't just impeach a president because you're bored. You need something substantial. Which hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread.

WickedLou9 · 10-25-2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You need evidence of a law broken to impeach. You can't just impeach a president because you're bored. You need something substantial. Which hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread.

in your opinion. I think violating the constitution is very important. Especialy when he does not deny the fact that he did it. The fact that it violates the constitution shoudln't be hard to see. He is basing his ability to do it on some loose definition of expanded powers during wartime, which is just nonsense and virtually all legal experts in the country today agree on this fact.

Diesel66 · 10-25-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He doesn't have to break a law to be impeached. How many times you going to say the same wrong bullshit?

Constitution says otherwise.

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Constitution says otherwise.

No it doesn't. Link? And when you post what you're going to post, what is a "high crime" and who defines that?

7960 · 10-25-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He doesn't have to break a law to be impeached. How many times you going to say the same wrong bullshit?

Although the DA *could* come knock on my door and have me arrested, exactly what is he going to bring me to court for? If I didn't break a law then where do we go from there?

Same here... impeaching the president is making the accusation. What next?? You can't show or prove he did anyting wrong so why make the accusation? It's not going to stick....it's guaranteed to be a waste of time.

Donkey® · 10-25-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Although the DA *could* come knock on my door and have me arrested, exactly what is he going to bring me to court for? If I didn't break a law then where do we go from there?

Same here... impeaching the president is making the accusation. What next?? You can't show or prove he did anyting wrong so why make the accusation? It's not going to stick....it's guaranteed to be a waste of time.

This is not a criminal case. It is in PARALLEL to a criminal case. You can still be impeached without being convicted of a crime. If the President is drinking and driving (not likely because he doesn't drive...just using this to show a point) and he kills someone, gets taken to court and a jury or judge finds him not guilty...you mean to tell me that President can't be impeached? Wrong. We all know that in this court system it doesn't always mean a conviction just because charges are brought up. The mere fact a President is CHARGED with a crime should be enough reason to get him out of office. The evidence is there that he made several end runs around the Constitution - and has been ruled on in court that he has - so to me, that's more than enough to impeach him for crimes against US citizens.

7960 · 10-25-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The mere fact a President is CHARGED with a crime should be enough reason to get him out of office. The evidence is there that he made several end runs around the Constitution - and has been ruled on in court that he has - so to me, that's more than enough to impeach him for crimes against US citizens.

Ahh, so you want to charge him with a crime just for the purpose of impeaching him....... now I get it. Sort of like if you want your boss fired and you go tell HR "I saw him download kiddie pr0n" just so he gets fired. Now it's clear where you're coming from.......

hsmith · 10-25-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

except every actual crime/unconstitutional act he has done has been supported by Congress.

How does that make it legal?