Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[Beerina]

This will not even get as far as the BS impeachment of Clinton.

The Democrats have declared it DOA in the House, as the Cheney one was.

This is just more pointless pandering to True Believers bordering on political woo conspiracy theories.

 

[davefoc]

As usual, Davefoc, a very well worded message.

Maybe the best thing Republican legislators can do for themselves right now is to repudiate some components of the Party of Jesus as it currently exists.

I think we may see a dramatic reshuffling in the Republican Party over the next few years. It is conceivable, to me at least, that this election will be more catastrophic for them than 2006 was. I think they may need to completely reinvent themselves in order to go forward.

The first thing they should do is renounce neocons and dominionists, two influences that have virtually brought them to ruin, along with hundreds of thousands of corpses.

While I might be tickled if they also divorced all of the Fundamentalist wing of their party, that is unrealistic. The Republican Party has become synonymous with Fundamentalist Christianity IMHO, and while it seemed like a great marriage in 1992, Fundamentalism is not doing so well with young people today.

If the Republican Party were to morph themselves into the original type of conservative that tries to conserve things instead of blowing everything up, and if they are able to see that being green is consistent with being conservative, I think their future prospects might improve.

Note that a great deal of wishful thinking was used in the construction of this message.

I think the Republicans have figured out how to win elections with six strategies:
1. Appeal to social conservatives - abortion, gay marriage, faith based social spending, terry schiavo, etc.
2. Appeal to agricultural states with outlandish agricultural subsidies
3. Use corporate cronyism as a means of raising vast amounts of cash
4. Push militarism as patriotism
5. Appeal to the various Israeli hawk groups with a constant drumbeat for war in the middle east.
6. Appeal to the secular small government ideologs with hypocritical BS that is successful because that section of the Republican voting block can't imagine voting for Democrats as long as the Republicans continue to say the things they like to hear regardless of what the Republicans actually do.

I think mostly these are winning strategies for the Republicans especially in the red states and I don't see them moving away from them in the foreseeable future. The problem for the Republicans in the last seven years has been that they had enough power to actually implement their lunacy and they had a president who allowed them free rein to do so on almost all occasions.

So I share your view that hope for significant reforms in the Republican Party is wishful thinking. My hope is that massive electoral failure will give some power to small government Republicans and the moderate Republicans to the point that the Republican Party becomes rational enough that it serves as a reasonable alternative to the Democratic Party. Right now the Republicans that are retiring probably aren't all that unhappy about the disaster they have wrought since a lot of them are off to rake in the big bucks as lobbyists for their corporate cronies that they have served so well as congressman.

 

[SezMe]

Why did the Cheney impeachment initiative go nowhere? If the evidence is there, why the inaction in Congress?

If I remmber correctly, Pelosi's justification was that the House couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Her position was that the voters in 2006 gave the Donkeys a mandate to get the promised legislation enacted and their policies in place. She thought that impeachment proceedings would suck the oxygen out of all legislative activity and jeopardize her legislative agenda.

There is another reason I think is right up there but gets little mention. While the Dems held a clear majority, a lot of those were blue dogs from pretty conservative districts. They would certainly have not been behind any impeachment and could have caused serious trouble in a number of areas. And they could have been in trouble back home in the next election cycle.

So DR's point is underscored. Impeachment is political and the evidence that Turley mentions remains valid but impotent. I don't like it one bit but, sadly, Pelosi did not check in with me on this one.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm worried about Tsukasa and remarks like this:

(Psst, google DSM-IV)

 

[SezMe]

Think for a moment here, Jerome is on the right track. Congress puts a law together. President vetoes it. Congress overrides the veto. Executive refuses to execute. What next? Charges. Into court. The court rules. One of the two sides is deemed to be correct, or more Constitutionally correct. It is not correct to assume that the legislative branch is by default and position correct. It could be ruled either way, depending upon the case.

What the executive would be doing in that case is challenging the legislative body: oh, you say it's Constitutional? Well, I'm calling your bluff, off to court we go.

I'm no constitutional scholar but I don't think that is how it works. If a law is passed and signed by the President, he cannot turn around and simply declare it is unconstitutional and take the case to court.

Since he has signed the law, I think it is assumed to be constitutional and the executive branch has to enforce it. If they don't like it, then a test case is found and THEN that case is taken to the Supremes to put it to the constitutional sniff test.

Maybe one of our resident sharks could weigh in here.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I'm no constitutional scholar but I don't think that is how it works. If a law is passed and signed by the President, he cannot turn around and simply declare it is unconstitutional and take the case to court.

But... DarthRotar's example involved the President vetoing a bill and Congress overriding him.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm no constitutional scholar but I don't think that is how it works. If a law is passed and signed by the President, he cannot turn around and simply declare it is unconstitutional and take the case to court.

Since he has signed the law, I think it is assumed to be constitutional and the executive branch has to enforce it. If they don't like it, then a test case is found and THEN that case is taken to the Supremes to put it to the constitutional sniff test.

Maybe one of our resident sharks could weigh in here.

I'm no shark, but my understanding is the same as yours... the President is committing a pretty clear crime if he ignores a law passed by Congress. If he doesn't like the law, he can go to the Supreme Court and fight it. Otherwise, the law is the law.

More proof, of course, that right wingers hate and have no respect for the rule of law, and are generally unfit citizens.

 

[SezMe]

But... DarthRotar's example involved the President vetoing a bill and Congress overriding him.

Doesn't matter regarding the point of my post.

 

[SezMe]

I'm no shark, but my understanding is the same as yours... the President is committing a pretty clear crime if he ignores a law passed by Congress. If he doesn't like the law, he can go to the Supreme Court and fight it. Otherwise, the law is the law.

But my basic point is that that is NOT what the President can do. I think he has to put the law into practice, find a test case that makes his point, and take that test case to the Supremes. He cannot bypass Go and take a bill DIRECTLY to the Supremes and ask them to say whether it is constitutional or not.

 

[JoeEllison]

But my basic point is that that is NOT what the President can do. I think he has to put the law into practice, find a test case that makes his point, and take that test case to the Supremes. He cannot bypass Go and take a bill DIRECTLY to the Supremes and ask them to say whether it is constitutional or not.

So you're saying he has to break the law, and see if he gets away with it or not?

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

But my basic point is that that is NOT what the President can do. I think he has to put the law into practice, find a test case that makes his point, and take that test case to the Supremes. He cannot bypass Go and take a bill DIRECTLY to the Supremes and ask them to say whether it is constitutional or not.

My understanding is that a President can claim a law as unconstitutional, but like you say he doesn't get to just walk into the Supreme Court and challenge Congress. The only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law is to find a plaintiff to work it through the Federal Courts.

 

[Darth Rotor]

More proof, of course, that right wingers hate and have no respect for the rule of law, and are generally unfit citizens.

Way to poison your own argument.

@ Sezme: I think your critique of my off the cuff scenario is correct, but I also think that this is where signing statements come in, in some cases, and the calling of a bluff comes in.

My scenario has the veto overridden, so the bill becomes law. If Pres then doesnt' do x, y, or z, then a charge of law breaking arises, and the President, or other executive branch official, becomes the plaintiff you stated, correctly, in the test case.

I am happy to stand corrected if that sequence of events would not be a rational expectation of the executive so calling the Legislative Branch's bluff on the constitutionality of a bill that becomes law.

DR

 

[SezMe]

So you're saying he has to break the law, and see if he gets away with it or not?

Not quite but not entirely wrong. Let's say congress enacts a law that (at the end of the story) is found to be unconstitutional. To get to the end of the story, the executive branch has in put the law into practice. Assuming, again for the sake of the story, that the president thinks the law is unconstitutional. He will put the law into practice in a way which makes its unconstitutionality most blatently obvious. Then, some aggrieved party who has suffered from the law (that is, a person who has standing) then files a suit making that claim. It wends its way through the courts until the Supremes rule. But they really don't rule on the law, they rule on the case that is brought before them. This gives them a lot of wriggle room regarding the constitutionality of the original law in question.

But until that decision is rendered, then the law is in effect so essentially the president had to enact a unconstitutional law in order to find that out.

I've PM'ed one of our resident sharks to weigh in here. I'm in way over my pay grade.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think it'll be hard to show that Bush actually lied rather than just being a moron with convictions that lead to poor decisions.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

BUSH'S AMERICA: 100 PERCENT AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001

June 11, 2008

... snip ...

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

... snip ...

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones.

... snip ...

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

... snip ...

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

... snip ...

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity. "

 

[JoeEllison]

Not quite but not entirely wrong. Let's say congress enacts a law that (at the end of the story) is found to be unconstitutional. To get to the end of the story, the executive branch has in put the law into practice. Assuming, again for the sake of the story, that the president thinks the law is unconstitutional. He will put the law into practice in a way which makes its unconstitutionality most blatently obvious. Then, some aggrieved party who has suffered from the law (that is, a person who has standing) then files a suit making that claim. It wends its way through the courts until the Supremes rule. But they really don't rule on the law, they rule on the case that is brought before them. This gives them a lot of wriggle room regarding the constitutionality of the original law in question.

But until that decision is rendered, then the law is in effect so essentially the president had to enact a unconstitutional law in order to find that out.

I've PM'ed one of our resident sharks to weigh in here. I'm in way over my pay grade.

hmmm... But, does the President have the power to enact any laws?

 

[Loss Leader]

Maybe one of our resident sharks could weigh in here.

Well, I'll be glad to try to explain how the process works although I'm a little uncertain of what question I'm supposed to be answering. Everybody here is at least partially wrong (Jerome, of course, the most egregiously). I'll just make up my own questions and answer them, I guess.

Can a President sign a bill and then claim it's unconstitutional?

Yes, although he probably wouldn't because it's insane. More likely, the President would claim that only some certain application of the law is constitutional and refuse to apply it in other instances. For example, Connecticut passed a law banning the use of contraceptives. The governor (through his attorney general), refused to apply the law to married individuals because, he conceded, they had the right to use contraception if they wanted.

Can the legislature sue the President for refusing to enforce a law?

Not usually. Only an agrieved party can sue anybody for anything. Chances are that the legislature is not the entity hurt by refusal to enforce a law. The soldier who doesn't get his pay raise because the President won't release funds that Congress has authorized could sue; the Congress could not. Congress could sue the President to enforce a law in which they were harmed such as if the President failed to turn over recordings of him agreeing to a bribe.

Can a regular person really sue the President?

Not usually. One generally sues the person responsible for administering the law. The soldier waiting for a pay raise would probably sue the Comptroler of the Army or the Secretary of Defense. In any case, the President would at most be a defendant. He would never be a plaintiff in any suit to enforce a law (by writ of mandamus) or suspend a law (by injunction). This is because the executive branch IS the branch that enforces laws. The President can't complain about himself.

Who can determine that a law is unconstitutional?

Any court - state or federal - and only a court. A court's judgment is only limited to its jurisdiction, though. If the US 2nd Circuit declares that a law is unconstitutional, that law is unconstitutional in the New York area. In Georgia, it's still the law. Only the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional finally and for the whole of the United States. Any lower court ruling can be appealed to a higher court with a larger geographic jurisdiction. There are many times where a law is declared unconstitutional in some state or circuit court and the federal government does NOT appeal for fear that a higher court will agree. The feds just quietly stop enforcing the law or only stop enforcing it in that area.

Does the President's oath mean anything?

No. Technically, the President doesn't even have to take an oath. He becomes President by operation of law. George W. Bush became President at 12:00 p.m., January 20, 2001, even though he didn't take the oath until several minutes later. If the Russians had attacked at 11:58, Clinton would have been in charge for two minutes, then Bush. And everybody, even the Russians, would have been surprised.

The President's oath to "support and defend the constitution" is meaningless. It is not a law. He cannot be held to the words of his oath nor punished for ignoring them. He might as well have receited the words to Blinded By The Light, assuming he could understand what Manfred Mann was saying.

Can a case go directly to the Supreme Court?

Almost never. Almost all cases start out in a trial court. If no facts are at issue, the sides might stipulate to a set of facts and get a decision more quickly but almost nothing starts at the Supreme Court. In fact, the Court almost doesn't have to hear any case it doesn't want to. Of the over 10,000 cases appealed to the Supreme Court every year, only about 180 are heard and decided.

Can the Supreme Court issue advisory opinions?

No.

Please let me know if there are any other questions.

 

[Loss Leader]

To get to the end of the story, the executive branch has in put the law into practice.

Not at all.

It wends its way through the courts until the Supremes rule. But they really don't rule on the law, they rule on the case that is brought before them. This gives them a lot of wriggle room regarding the constitutionality of the original law in question.

Nope. The Supreme Court only rules on issues of law. They do not have the authority to find on the facts. The Court can, however, write its opinion in such a way that it applies only to the facts of a specific case or, if it chooses, to apply to an entire manner of enforcing a law or even to the very constitutionality of the entire law itself, even portions of the law that were not in issue.

 

[Ysidro]

Funny you mention this! How dare you expose us! Next thing you know you got a horde of Pardalis with bullhorns yelling at cars making the elitist mad!

The best thing about that article is all the comments from the Paulbots. He's not part of the NWO! He doesn't know the handshake!

 

[SezMe]

To get to the end of the story, the executive branch has in put the law into practice.

Not at all.

Thanks for hopping on, LL. The above gets to the heart of my question. How can a law get put before the judiciary unless the executive branch has put it into practice? As you say, "One generally sues the person responsible for administering the law." So if the law is not being administered at all, how can a case based on it be put to a court?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

The whole thing is swimming in politics.

Depends on what you are looking for, but let's go back to the original point Dennis is pursuing: impeachment. It is an inherently political process, infested with all that politics brings with it. The impeachment proceedings versus William Jefferson Clinton amply demonstrated that.

Let us suppose that the law professor is correct. There is evidence in surplus of all sorts of illegality, high crimes, misdemeanors, skullduggery, coverups, and so on.

Why did the Cheney impeachment initiative go nowhere? If the evidence is there, why the inaction in Congress?

My point on the burden of proof has to do with a powerful enough batch of evidence that eight Senators cross the aisle ,and vote against the President. Remember, politics. I'd not mix a courtroom setting with a proceeding in Congress. I don't hold lawyers and judges in such low regard.

DR

(emphasis mine)

You answered your own questions.

You know I have been following this stuff closely for the last 8 years. You may not agree with my assessments but you at least know I look deep. There are so many laws these guys have broken it is flabbergasting that so many people just ignore the facts. And I am not talking about just the Libby case.

In the Libby case, Cheney claimed the authority to unclassify secrets. That's why no further actions were pursued. Also on the obstruction charges, they obstructed evidence gathering.

But on the producing propaganda for domestic consumption, clear legal violations occurred. If there wasn't a law that prohibited sending covert operatives to feed propaganda to the press, don't you think there should be?

Then there are all the war crimes, abducting a couple citizens among all the other renditions, torture, suspending habeas corpus with no authority to do so. We are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. They have the force of law.

We haven't even gotten into disregard for separation of powers by refusing to enforce Congressional mandates and laws. The Supreme court has ruled that line item vetos are unconstitutional.

Then you have the corrupt political appointments and the attempt to subvert the Department of Justice. Again, do you believe the law allows the President to use the DoJ for political purposes?

Which brings up the use of the GAO and other budget powers for overt political campaigning. Even the Peace Corp was used to promote the Republican Party.

Oh, and it was illegal for the White House to use the Republican Party email system. There is a law that says they cannot destroy the public record.

There really is a long list of specific violations of real laws. These are not vague 'depends on judgment' offenses.