Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[davefoc]

Your argument is "He did it so that makes it ok". That is the dumbest thing I've seen posted here.

Is this what the Republicans call "Family values"?

I don't happen to agree with sentiment of the post above by Texas either, but there is truth to what he said.

And it goes to what is one of the serious difficulties with most hypothetical presidential impeachments excluding ones where the president is just some plain criminal nutjob that embarrasses his own party so much that they will vote against him. The problem is that ethical and legal lines are pushed by every administration and the issue becomes to what degree the lines were overstepped. In those situations it will always be possible for partisans to make the argument that every president does it and their guy is no different than every other president.

In the case of Bush, I think the argument is strained in that the Bush administration seems to have been less ethical and more politically driven than any other of my life, but the argument is also valid. This is not the same as sitting on a jury and figuring out if the guy did it or he didn't. This is more like sitting on a jury and figuring out how bad the guy was and whether that level of badness was bad enough that the guy should be found guilty. This is a very ambiguous proposition for which partisan spinning and partisan biases will inevitably produce a very divided country.

I think it is interesting to contemplate what will happen, assuming that the Democrats get control of the house, senate and presidency with regard to all this. Right now the president and his minions have been successfully impeding all investigations of wrong doing that might lead to the president or his high level advisers. Without executive privilege and the power of controlling the government to protect these guys what will come out and what will be the consequences of that? Bush has worked for legislation to seal the records of all the presidents for long periods of time. Will his success at that effort protect him? Or will the congress just overturn those restrictions and get what it wants? Does fear of future investigations and charges serve as a useful constraint on the executive branch?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Bush has committed no crimes. ....

And your expertise in this matter comes from where?

Seems rather naive of you to claim this as a fact when some Constitutional scholars are saying Bush has blatantly committed crimes.

At most you might say, not everyone agrees. But that's a stretch. I think the only defenders are those more obviously politically motivated. Where as the accusers have less reason to take this stand for political reasons since Bush is soon to be out of power. Accusers have little to gain.

 

[BeAChooser]

accusers Have Little To Gain.

Rotflol!

 

[Texas]

Accusers have little to gain.

Except for the fact y'all can't get his scalp in retaliation for Clinton. All of this faux outrage from the left is really nothing more than the political equivalent of toddlers holding their breath until they get their way. Their faces now have gone from blue to plaid.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except for the fact y'all can't get his scalp in retaliation for Clinton. All of this faux outrage from the left is really nothing more than the political equivalent of toddlers holding their breath until they get their way. Their faces now have gone from blue to plaid.

 

[Random]

Laws allowing Presidential line item vetoes have been struck down a number of times by the Supreme Court as violating separation of powers. Bush's drastic use of signing statements violated separation of powers by essentially saying he wasn't going to follow laws passed by the Congress. The correct procedure is a veto and if it is overridden, then Congressional power supersedes the Presidential power.

George Bush can vomit into a paper bag, staple that bag to the back of an appropriations bill, and it would have all the legal standing as a Presidential signing statement. None at all. If Bush believes they offer him any sort of real legal protection, he may be surprised in a criminal proceeding.

The real protection that Bush enjoys is simply a spineless Congress that is unwilling to defend its own power and meekly goes along with “fascism-lite”. As long as they fail to call Bush on his BS, he will just keep doing it.

 

[Texas]

George Bush can vomit into a paper bag, staple that bag to the back of an appropriations bill, and it would have all the legal standing as a Presidential signing statement. None at all. If Bush believes they offer him any sort of real legal protection, he may be surprised in a criminal proceeding.

The real protection that Bush enjoys is simply a spineless Congress that is unwilling to defend its own power and meekly goes along with “fascism-lite”. As long as they fail to call Bush on his BS, he will just keep doing it.

No, Bush has the same power as Congress to determine the constitutional merit of a law. In other words, not much. If he issues a signing statement then the only recourse congress has is to challenge it in the USSC. Signing statements are completely constitutional until they are deemed unconstitutional by the Judiciary and carry no criminal penalty at all. The very issue of a signing statement puts the Congress on notice that the executive branch disagrees with the constitutional soundness of the portion of the statute it addresses. The Congress has NO option other than to challenge that in court. Impeachment does not even come into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

Congressional Research Service report issued on September 17, 2007,[5] uses as a metric the percentage of signing statements that contain "objections" to provisions of the bill being signed into law:

President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H. W. Bush continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.[5]

Clinton used signing statements twice as often as GW Bush and less that both Bush 1 and Reagan.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....The very issue of a signing statement puts the Congress on notice that the executive branch disagrees with the constitutional soundness of the portion of the statute it addresses. The Congress has NO option other than to challenge that in court. Impeachment does not even come into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, lie la lie..."

From your Wiki link:

In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[1]

...Clinton used signing statements twice as often as GW Bush and less that both Bush 1 and Reagan.

Bull! Where's your evidence? Everything written describes GW as the king of signing statements beyond all historical precedent.

 

[Random]

No, Bush has the same power as Congress to determine the constitutional merit of a law. In other words, not much. If he issues a signing statement then the only recourse congress has is to challenge it in the USSC. Signing statements are completely constitutional until they are deemed unconstitutional by the Judiciary and carry no criminal penalty at all. The very issue of a signing statement puts the Congress on notice that the executive branch disagrees with the constitutional soundness of the portion of the statute it addresses. The Congress has NO option other than to challenge that in court. Impeachment does not even come into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

Incorrect. Congress does not have the ability to challenge signing statements in court as they are legally meaningless. It would be like filing an injunction against a five-year old's crayon doodles. There is nothing there to challenge.

As for impeachment, for all the dithering about "high crimes and misdemeanors", all you need to remove a president is a simple majority in the House, and a two thirds majority in the Senate. If you have that, wearing white after labor day can be an impeachable offense.