What about impeachment

[medicinal]

Impeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of our Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok.

Our founders created a new form of government that was designed to preserve liberty by breaking up power among three co-equal branches of government and instituting a system of checks and balances. But they worried deeply about presidential misconduct. Left unchallenged, it could be "fatal to the Republic," said James Madison. The new democracy needed the ability to remove a president, if necessary.

Impeachment is the first step of a two-step process that can result in the removal of a president from office. The House of Representatives first decides whether to charge the president with impeachable offenses. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, articles of impeachment, which contain the charges, are forwarded to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a trial in the Senate, and if two-thirds of the senators vote for conviction, the president is removed from office.

THE FOUNDERS SET A HIGH BAR—The grounds for removal of a president are stated in the Constitution in a phrase of only eight words: "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Understanding the meaning of this spare language is helped by looking at the original debates on the Constitution. In adopting the impeachment provision, the framers identified treason and bribery as two key reasons for the removal of a president. Treason was defined in the Constitution as providing "aid and comfort" to enemies or "levying war" against the United States. Bribery is a well-established concept that hasn't changed much over time.

But the framers believed that these grounds were not sufficient. A president should also be removed for other "great and dangerous offenses" or the "attempts to subvert the Constitution," in the words of George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention. The grounds were expanded to include "high crimes and misdemeanors"—an archaic phrase that the framers borrowed from British terminology dating back to the fourteenth century. It was defined as "an injury to the state or system of government."

Alexander Hamilton explained in No. 65 of the Federalist Papers that impeachment reached "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself." In essence, "high crimes and misdemeanors" describe a political crime, a serious and grave abuse of power or an abuse of public trust.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes. We debated this in the Judiciary Committee during Watergate and reached a firm conclusion. While commission of a crime may be grounds for impeachment, the phrase also covers conduct that is not a violation of the criminal code.

The key is whether the conduct is a grave abuse of power or a subversion of the Constitution. Some presidential misdeeds we encountered in the Nixon impeachment had a basis in the criminal law; others did not. On the flip side, not all violations of the criminal code are political crimes that rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Editor's note: With their party back in power for the first time since 1994, some senior House Democrats who will be rising to committee chairmanships are already planning to conduct investigations into wrongdoings of the Bush administration in everything thing from fraud and abuse in Iraq War contracting to illegal domestic surveillance and detainee interrogations. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders, however, are signaling that any investigations will be kept on a tight leash. They fear that scrutiny of the administration will make Democrats appear excessively partisan and cost the party votes in 2008. As for the possible impeachment of President George W. Bush, Pelosi has explicitly declared it to be "off the table."

Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman is one wise legal thinker who says that, whether or not it would be a political liability for the Democrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty. Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. Holtzman's full brief on this subject can be found in The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books), which she co-wrote with Cynthia L. Cooper.

mpeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of our Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok.

Our founders created a new form of government that was designed to preserve liberty by breaking up power among three co-equal branches of government and instituting a system of checks and balances. But they worried deeply about presidential misconduct. Left unchallenged, it could be "fatal to the Republic," said James Madison. The new democracy needed the ability to remove a president, if necessary.

Impeachment is the first step of a two-step process that can result in the removal of a president from office. The House of Representatives first decides whether to charge the president with impeachable offenses. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, articles of impeachment, which contain the charges, are forwarded to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a trial in the Senate, and if two-thirds of the senators vote for conviction, the president is removed from office.

THE FOUNDERS SET A HIGH BAR—The grounds for removal of a president are stated in the Constitution in a phrase of only eight words: "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Understanding the meaning of this spare language is helped by looking at the original debates on the Constitution. In adopting the impeachment provision, the framers identified treason and bribery as two key reasons for the removal of a president. Treason was defined in the Constitution as providing "aid and comfort" to enemies or "levying war" against the United States. Bribery is a well-established concept that hasn't changed much over time.

But the framers believed that these grounds were not sufficient. A president should also be removed for other "great and dangerous offenses" or the "attempts to subvert the Constitution," in the words of George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention. The grounds were expanded to include "high crimes and misdemeanors"—an archaic phrase that the framers borrowed from British terminology dating back to the fourteenth century. It was defined as "an injury to the state or system of government."

Alexander Hamilton explained in No. 65 of the Federalist Papers that impeachment reached "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself." In essence, "high crimes and misdemeanors" describe a political crime, a serious and grave abuse of power or an abuse of public trust.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes. We debated this in the Judiciary Committee during Watergate and reached a firm conclusion. While commission of a crime may be grounds for impeachment, the phrase also covers conduct that is not a violation of the criminal code.

The key is whether the conduct is a grave abuse of power or a subversion of the Constitution. Some presidential misdeeds we encountered in the Nixon impeachment had a basis in the criminal law; others did not. On the flip side, not all violations of the criminal code are political crimes that rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

President Bush has attempted to justify his illegal surveillance as falling within his power as commander in chief. The president's failure to recognize that he is bound by a constitutional system in which he is only one of three players and his abuse of his role as commander in chief threaten our democracy to its core, and are grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

3. For Permitting and Condoning the Mistreatment of U.S. Detainees: Congress has enacted laws prohibiting the mistreatment or torture of prisoners in U.S. hands. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a crime to violate the ban in the Geneva Conventions regarding torture and cruel or degrading treatment. Ratified by the United States in 1955, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, as is the Convention against Torture. The U.S. government has long adhered to the laws and treaties that prevent mistreatment of prisoners.

President Bush unilaterally changed U.S. practice and policy by a 2002 memo rejecting the application of the Geneva Conventions and enabling U.S. personnel to conduct brutal interrogations without fear of prosecution. In so doing, the president voided a U.S. law and permitted others to break it. The president may not violate treaties or interpret them in ways designed to nullify their essential purpose.

In addition, when evidence emerged of abusive treatment of persons in U.S. military detention facilities, the president had a duty to institute a thorough investigation of everyone in the chain of command, from top to bottom. He has not done so. This responsibility is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. The president is also required to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, including the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act. President Bush failed to ensure a full investigation and to see that the responsible parties, including higher-ups, were held accountable. These failures are impeachable offenses.

When Congress reaffirmed its opposition to torture and cruel or degrading treatment of detainees in a statute passed in 2005, the president added a statement when he signed the bill, signaling that he intended to violate it. Impeachment is the only way to prevent a president from continuing to disregard his obligations to enforce the law, not to break it.

4. For Reckless Indifference to Human Life during Hurricane Katrina: President Bush showed a reckless indifference to human life in failing to marshal emergency resources in response to Katrina. This type of gross negligence is also apparent in his decision to invade Iraq without providing protective equipment to soldiers and without having an adequate post-invasion plan.
If the president's actions were simple negligence, they might not amount to impeachable offenses. During the debates at the Constitutional Convention, one of the grounds initially raised for impeachment was "neglect of duty." At the convention, the Committee on Detail changed that language to "treason and bribery," which was in turn expanded by adding the term "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The framers were undoubtedly familiar with the history of that British term. At least two noteworthy impeachments for neglect had occurred in Britain: one involved the neglect of the commissioner of the Navy to prepare adequately against an invasion; the other related to neglect by an admiral who had failed to safeguard the seas. In a classic nineteenth-century text on constitutional interpretation, Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court states that impeachment can result from "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."

Bush's actions during Katrina and in regard to Iraq are "inexcusable neglects." When Hurricane Katrina threatened New Orleans, President Bush was personally informed of an impending catastrophe, but did not take the necessary actions to protect human lives. Under law, he alone was empowered to mobilize additional federal resources. He did not take care that the laws were faithfully executed.

In addition, the president's failure to provide sufficient body armor and protective equipment for our troops in Iraq or to develop a proper plan for the occupation of Iraq after the invasion are violations of his obligation to "take care." U.S. soldiers and the American people trusted the president to exercise special care in making thorough preparations.

The president neglected his duty over matters of vast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great. This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference to human life provides the basis for impeachment.

5. For Leaking Classified Information: After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush authorized a top White House aide to leak passages of a classified document to key reporters. The leak came in response to criticism that the president had deceived the country about Iraq's nuclear weapons capability in his State of the Union address. The criticism was accurate, but the leak had the effect of distorting the truth.

The leak was intertwined with the "outing" of a covert CIA agent married to the Bush critic. Declassifying information to mislead the public and cover up presidential deceptions about war making is an abuse of power. If the facts, as yet unknown, show that President Bush had any role in releasing the identity of the CIA agent, a potential violation of federal law, that would be an impeachable offense.

President Bush has committed a great many grave and dangerous offenses, and subverted the Constitution. The evidence is clear and strong. Congress cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the nation from tyranny. This is what the founders of this country intended when they added presidential impeachment to the Constitution.

medicinal Reviewed by medicinal on 12-10-2006. What about impeachment Impeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of our Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok. Our founders created a new form of government that was designed to preserve liberty by breaking up power among three co-equal branches of government and instituting a Rating: 5

[Bong30]

Why dont we waste some more time.......


Gdub is a MORON....why waste time with him.

Even Socialist ding Bat Nancy Pelosi says we shouldnt.

[Hamlet]

The damage Bush and Cheney have done will last for generations. If they can be dragged out of office now through Impeachment, I'm all for it. They're lame ducks now after the elections, but that's not enough. We need sane leaders for the next two years who aren't busy protecting Exxons interests and covering their own ass's.

[Bong30]

We need to focus on finding a real leader..... you look back.


Ill look forward...one we can change one we cant.


Gdub..will go down as one fo the worst presidents in history......let history try and convict him......


Lets move on......


What im saying is he isnt worth impeaching

[Zimzum]

Hmm.. Robert Byrd as next president then.. interesting.

EDIT: ack sorry not Robert but Nancy Paloci Missed a step in the presidential secession

[medicinal]

[quote=Bong30]Why dont we waste some more time.......


Gdub is a MORON....why waste time with him.

Even Morons can be criminals ala GW Bush. What he has done is criminal. They would throw you or I in prison for much less. Justice is due!

[Storm Crow]

If we can do a "two-fer", I'm for it! But just dumping "W" would leave Cheney in charge - shudder!

[medicinal]

Amen to that, I'm of the persuasion that cheney may be behind a lot of this insanity, too bad the lawyer didn't shoot back!

[darkside]

it certainly wasnt worth the money they spent impeaching Clinton for a BLOWJOB. its a little too late to impeach Bush though. he has already rained his destruction on this country.

[Zimzum]

it certainly wasnt worth the money they spent impeaching Clinton for a BLOWJOB. its a little too late to impeach Bush though. he has already rained his destruction on this country.

No it wasn't for the fact he got a BJ.. It had more to do with the fact he lied under oath about it. But to impeach Bush now when alls said and done his term will be about over anyways.