FEBRUARY 21, 2006 – In these highly-charged political times, it is the word that dare not speak its name: impeachment. Democrats and other opponents of the President, as well as people in the media, are afraid to raise the topic for fear of being called too partisan or extreme.
But the startling revelation of the President’s warrantless wiretapping campaign may be the straw that broke the camel's back: In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more openly. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: there has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon.
In ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH, Michael Ratner, Bill Goodman and other experts at one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, set out the legal arguments for impeachment in a clear, concise, and objective discussion. In four separate articles of impeachment detailing four separate charges –warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers – it is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH details that evidence, the relevant laws and the legal precedents. It also explains what the Constitution says about impeachment – an informative discussion further illuminated by supplemental material that includes a history of impeachment, explanation of its procedures, and the previous articles of impeachment brought against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
With leading Republicans calling for investigations of the domestic spying campaign, a special prosecutor investigating the suppression of evidence used to launch the Iraq war, and hearings on innumerable instances of torture, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH may be more timely than any of us would like to admit.
2006-06-26 07:09:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Caus 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ok morons, Clinton *was* impeached. Impeachment is simply brining an elected official up on criminal charges. Impeachment can lead to a person being removed from office, but impeachment and removal from office are not one & the same. Clinton was impeached on committing perjury to a grand jury.
There are plenty of things for GWB to be impeached on, but unfortunately his cronies never will and the idiots on the right will never realize that he has lied over and over and that he and his staff are morally challenged con men.
2006-06-26 07:12:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
President Clinton WAS successfully impeached for perjury. He was not removed from office due to this impeachment though, which is why most morons think he wasn't actually impeached.
GWB has not done anything that is an impeachable offense. Sadly for you libs, he has not broken any laws.
2006-06-26 08:31:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Goose&Tonic 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. When you say "we", dont include me in it when you refer to G.W. Bush. He hasn't committed any impeachable offenses. The Dems can impeach him, but they know he'll never be convicted of anything. They just want revenge for Clintons impeachment.
I would like to see action taken against Congress more than the President. Congress is full of corruption, and snakes, yet nobody is paying attention to them. They are the rats in the barrel, not the President. Maybe you should refocus ur sights and take another look.
2006-06-26 07:10:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by jack f 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath...he committed an impeachable offense. Impeachment just means being called to trial....not being force out of office. You can't impeach Bush for anything, because he has not commited any crimes.
And please people: look up the definition of impeachment! Know your facts before you spout off about them!
And caus: what do you mean liberals dare not speak about impeachment? It is all they run their mouths about.
2006-06-26 07:17:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by loubean 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (perjury). As far as I know, there is nothing you can impeach Bush for at this time since he has not broken a law while in office.
2006-06-26 07:07:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
President Clinton was not successfully impeached.
2006-06-26 07:08:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by merdenoms 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Looking through the answers I see how uneducated people are on impeachment. GWB would require a democrat congress, and that could be enough to set-up something. Although I don't know if they would actually attempt to do anything.
2006-06-26 10:33:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rick 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing, you are wasting your time. If the Democrats impeached Bush to get him out of office it would be nothing short of a coup which would cause an uproar in this country.
2006-06-26 07:11:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
clinton was not impeached, if he was he would have been taken out of office and he served his full term. you need to go back to school.
2006-06-26 07:09:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋