So we can't impeach Bush if he hasn't broken any laws . . . but didn't he take an oath to listen to the will of the people and follow their direction? Doesn't being in violation of this most solemn promise constitute some violation of law?
2007-01-24 03:50:59 · 16 answers · asked by Batty 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I stand corrected. but I was taught that a representative government in America was based on the critical relationship between government and the people it serves; particularly processes that serve to realize the goal of a government of, by, and for the people. With the approval rating of Mr. Bush at such an historic low, and more talk of impeachment being heard, I was simply wondering why this breach in the intent of the law wasn't enough to support impeachment.
I am enjoying your answers. Thank you all.
2007-01-24 06:05:07 · update #1
I think what we have lost in this country is accountability of elected officials. In 1942 the government had to sell war bonds to finance WWII. In other words the people had to support the war. Today support of the people is no longer necessary. The government is no longer accountable to the people.
2007-01-24 04:01:04 · answer #1 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Willful violation of the oath of office to uphold the constitution is grounds for impeachment. The oath of office says nothing about following the will of the people.
The illegal wire taps being a direct and willful violation of the 4th amendment is one example of violation of the oath of office as well as qualifying as a "high crime" on it's own.
This offense is easy to prove by the presidents own admission as well as the court rulings on the matter.
Just like Al Capone, every one knows Bush is a criminal but we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the more extensive crimes. So go for the easy conviction that will get the POS off the street.
2007-01-24 12:00:36 · answer #2 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Actually he took no such oath.
The Presidential Oath is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nothing about listening to the majority or anything. Hope this helps.
Have a wonderful day.
2007-01-24 11:57:46 · answer #3 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Read up on the Nuremberg Trials. Many followers of Hitler were convicted of war crimes (and sentenced to death by hanging) for "(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression".
It doesn't take a high IQ to recall an ongoing war fitting this exact description spearheaded by none other than the man you are speaking about.
2007-01-24 12:23:07 · answer #4 · answered by Edward W 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Right concept, wrong offense ... perhaps something war profiteering or treason related; it would have to be true and provable, however. His support is crumbling; if someone knows something provable, it may come out. Incompetence, stupidity or letting underlings set their own unfortunate agendas are not impeacheable offenses.
2007-01-24 12:02:46 · answer #5 · answered by xwdguy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, he didn't. The oath says:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Doesn't say anything about will of the people or follow their direction. That's what elections are about.
2007-01-24 11:57:20 · answer #6 · answered by JB 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Sorry that is not part of any speech. He declares to protect the constitution. "Listen to the will of the people and follow there direction"? I think you got American Idol and President mixed up...
2007-01-24 11:58:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
You're grasping at straws. There's not one politician who's listened to the will of the people within the past century. If we impeach every one of them that didn't, though, we'd be an anarchy.
2007-01-24 12:01:14 · answer #8 · answered by <3 The Pest <3 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, he took an oath to uphold and defend the laws of the United States.
And, whether you like his methods or not, he has done so.
Perhaps a little too agressively for most.
2007-01-24 11:56:28 · answer #9 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 6⤊ 3⤋
I bet the will of the people is to not have to pay taxes atall. ask anyone....
I bet no one will get into any trouble for not doing that.....
I am neither for nor against him, but I can't imagine that is a reason that people will get rid of him,
esp with the term being close to ending.
2007-01-24 12:00:05 · answer #10 · answered by papeche 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋