Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[Loss Leader]

So if the law is not being administered at all, how can a case based on it be put to a court?

An injured party has the right to sue the government to force it to do what it is supposed to do. This is histroically called a Writ of Mandamus (literally, mandating how the government behaves). In New York, it is called an Article 78 proceeding. Other states have all sorts of names for it.

Whatever you call it, your suit states: 1) who you are; 2) what the government was supposed to do; and 3) how you are injured because they're not doing it. Suing the government for doing something they're not supposed to do is exactly the same as suing them for not doing something they should be.

Be warned, though, being a taxpayer is not enough to give you the right to force the government to obey a law. And, in most cases, the government's behavior must be arbitrary and capricious. That's a pretty low threshhold for them to meet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Funny that you chose to compare a Democrat to a Republican...



I mean, you could have said the same thing with Clinton... Oh right.

Because it wasn't party or leanings I was talking about. I was referring to McCain's claim of being principled and not being swayed by political pressures. It is a false image to say the least. With Kucinich, it is a true image. He does put principle over politics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances.

Er, no, that is the role of the Judicial Branch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sure you were in agreement with all the legal reasons Professor Turley cited when he testified as a constitutional scholar in favor of the Clinton impeachment. What would your idol Hillary say?

You would love to compare a relentless campaign to get Clinton which resulted in entrapping him to lie abut cheating on his wife to the Bush crimes. The comparison is laughable.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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.

How exactly would the Congress force the Executive to enforce a law which the Executive believes invalid?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

B-304228, Department of Education--No Child Left Behind Act Video News Release and Media Analysis, September 30, 2005

CONCLUSION

The Department’s use of appropriated funds to produce a prepackaged news story regarding Supplemental Educational Services that failed to inform the viewing audience of the government source violates the publicity or propaganda prohibition. As we have stated in previous opinions and as recently affirmed by Congress, to avoid a violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, an agency must inform the viewing public that the government is the source of the information disseminated. Moreover, because the Department had no appropriation available to produce and distribute materials in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, the Department violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. sect. 1341. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. sections 1351, 1517(b), the Department must report immediately its Antideficiency Act violation to the President and Congress and also send a copy of all reports to the Comptroller General.

Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law

The Pentagon military analyst program unveiled in last week's exposé by David Barstow in the New York Times was not just unethical but illegal. It violates, for starters, specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

Bush Shows No Remorse for Fake Newscasts

n one case, the administration -- seeking to build support among black families for its education reform plans -- paid a prominent African American pundit, Armstrong Williams, 240,000 dollars to promote the ”No Child Left Behind” law on his nationally syndicated television show and through his newspaper column, and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

Two other nationally known journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have also admitted accepting thousands of dollars to endorse government programs.

Since 2001, the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service has fielded 40 reporters, producers and public affairs specialists to create ”good military news” to be beamed to home audiences via local news stations. The service's ”good news” segments have reportedly reached 41 million Americans via local newscasts -- in most cases, without the station acknowledging their source.

More than 20 different federal agencies used taxpayer funds to produce television news segments promoting Bush administration policies. These ”video news releases,” or VNRs, were broadcast on hundreds of local news programs. without disclosing their source.

And the military's TV outlet the Pentagon Channel, which formerly targeted the armed forces, is now available to U.S. citizens via every satellite and cable operator.

Pentagon’s Pundits: A Look at the Defense Department’s Propaganda Program


Why no prosecution on this legal violation? Because Bush controled the DoJ. Who was supposed to file the charges?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How exactly would the Congress force the Executive to enforce a law which the Executive believes invalid?

By challenging the law via the Judicial Branch.

You are absurdly saying no one checks the Executive Branch. That is exactly what Bush has tried to set up, a dictatorship with no checks and balances on the executive branch.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Er, no, that is the role of the Judicial Branch.

So, Congress writes a law that states all green eyed babies must be killed, the President MUST preform this act until the Judicial branch rules.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

By challenging the law via the Judicial Branch.

You are absurdly saying no one checks the Executive Branch. That is exactly what Bush has tried to set up, a dictatorship with no checks and balances on the executive branch.

... and if the Executive did not follow the judgment of the Judicial?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You are correct and I don't want my oversimplified reply to Jerome to be misconstrued. This would be the procedure. The Pres can veto a law. If that is overridden, the Pres cannot declare it unconstitutional. A case has to be challenged.

The frightening thing abut the Bush admin is their outright blatant refusal to follow laws set up the risk of a terrible challenge to our Constitution. If he refused and Congress stood up to him, what would happen next? There have been times in the last 8 years, especially over Bush claiming no one had to testify from Harriet Myers to Rove, that had Congress stood up to him, we would have had a Constitutional crisis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... and if the Executive did not follow the judgment of the Judicial?

Then we have a dictator, a President flaunting the Constitutional separation of powers.

 

[Loss Leader]

How exactly would the Congress force the Executive to enforce a law which the Executive believes invalid?

Here's the most famous example.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, Congress writes a law that states all green eyed babies must be killed, the President MUST preform this act until the Judicial branch rules.

Your example is not realistic, but given that scenario, the guardians of the first baby to be killed get an injunction, it works its way through the courts and the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Here's the most famous example.

What was the action that forced?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your example is not realistic, but given that scenario, the guardians of the first baby to be killed get an injunction, it works its way through the courts and the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional.

Governments have never killed citizens for arbitrary reasons?

Of course they have, and by your thought process if the Congress writes such a law then the Executive must enforce said law until the courts rule upon the law.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

Then we have a dictator, a President flaunting the Constitutional separation of powers.

At which time we might deeply regret having to ask members of our armed forces to review the oath they took, and note that they swore first to uphold and protect the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign.

 

[INRM]

Impeachment is necessary as by not allowing Bush's impeachment it pretty much tells future presidents that they can do all the horrible crap Bush did and more and get away with it with no punishment. This is a nation of laws and nobody is supposed to be above the law.

I think it is important that people put pressure on the Democrat Congressional leadership (particularly all those that hail from California's 8th Congressional District -- Pelosi's district), sending messages clearly, calmly and assertively (and certainly non-violently) stating that they will not be elected again if they decide not to impeach...

...Or in the event that they put the whole thing on the back-burner again, to get as many people to NOT vote for the various people that form the leadership of the Democratic party...

Bush has violated this nation, it's people, it's laws, and the world for 8 years straight, and as a result of his criminal actions should be prosecuted. It is only fair that a person who flagrantly violates serious laws should be prosecuted for their violation.


INRM

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Some laws give administrative authority to the Pres. So he isn't enacting a law, but he sets up the rules for how a law will be managed.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

At which time we might deeply regret having to ask members of our armed forces to review the oath they took, and note that they swore first to uphold and protect the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign.

The esquire in this thread has told us that Oaths mean nothing.

Interesting position from an attorney.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Impeachment is necessary as by not allowing Bush's impeachment it pretty much tells future presidents that they can do all the horrible crap Bush did and more and get away with it with no punishment. This is a nation of laws and nobody is supposed to be above the law.

I think it is important that people put pressure on the Democrat Congressional leadership (particularly all those that hail from California's 8th Congressional District -- Pelosi's district), sending messages clearly, calmly and assertively (and certainly non-violently) stating that they will not be elected again if they decide not to impeach...

...Or in the event that they put the whole thing on the back-burner again, to get as many people to NOT vote for the various people that form the leadership of the Democratic party...

Bush has violated this nation, it's people, it's laws, and the world for 8 years straight, and as a result of his criminal actions should be prosecuted. It is only fair that a person who flagrantly violates serious laws should be prosecuted for their violation.


INRM

This is the harm in letting this slide as too bothersome to deal with. What is going to happen next time?