2006-12-11 18:07:42 · 8 answers · asked by Benny Ben 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There are bills that have been submitted, but as for whether or not they will move forward on them is not certain.
2006-12-11 18:11:03 · answer #1 · answered by Heatmizer 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Congress is not actually responsible for defending or upholding the Constitution. That duty falls to the Judiciary Branch. The Supreme Court are all Bush appointees. The next President will have their work cut out for them just straightening the mess Bush has created. The whole next term will be so unproductive that the new President will look incompetent. Do we really want an impeachment? I mean then we would have Cheney and Bush is better then that guy.
2006-12-12 02:14:27 · answer #2 · answered by Mike E 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is the impeachment for? Moving forward on the best available information at the time? Shell we also impeach the multitude of Democat senators who voted to go to war on this same info?
You Bush bashers need to get a life! He's not gonna be impeached just because you don't like him or his policies....get over it! He and the congress went forward on the info they had, now dozens of monday morning quarterbacks are saying 'we should have done this, or we would have done that' Where were they when all this started....right there on the floor of the house and senate voting to go to war!!
2006-12-12 02:18:19 · answer #3 · answered by Star G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are defending the Constitution by NOT moving towards impeachment. Having policies that you don't like is NOT grounds for impeachment.
2006-12-12 02:10:25 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because, technically speaking, GWB has not done anything [legally] worthy of impeachment. The constitution states that the grounds for impeachment are "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (see references).
He has not taken arms against the US (e.g. no marshal law, no military suppressing dissidents).
He (as far as we know) has not taken any bribes. (e.g. "Veto this and I'll pay you that.")
And he has not committed any other high crimes (unfortunately this is not defined in the constitution, but may mean anything from spitting in public to murder.)
I'm waiting just as fervently as you are for him to slip up, but he's got the best defense the White House can get: the US Supreme Court. Let's not forget who's appointed who to what seat...
To respond to another answer here, I think it would be possible by a future president to expand the number of justices on the US Supreme Court and appoint several more members that agree with the then current president's politics. The number of justices has been changed numerous times.
2006-12-12 02:36:15 · answer #5 · answered by Jack Schitt 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By not moving towards impeachment they are defending the US Constitution.
Anybody who supports placing a person on trial simply because they disagree with him politically is a danger to all our freedoms.
If you cannot quote the text of a law that was broken and provide evidence that the person broke that law - you simply have no case.
2006-12-12 10:19:42 · answer #6 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me see if I've got this straight: you want a Republican House to "moved [sic] toward impeachment"? Just why would a Republican House do such a thing?
2006-12-12 02:14:12 · answer #7 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to have done something illegal to be impeached probably, and so far Bush has not.
2006-12-12 02:26:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋