looks like the slime and sleaze in the Bush White House just keeps pouring out
2007-03-13 11:30:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Incompetence, not impeachable. I think after thirty-six years of voting I have never seen anything like President Bush and his administration. Their agenda is unknown, their arrogance is boundless, and their audacity is just stunning. I have never seen this country so divided, so polarized and so untrusting of our government and especially the executive branch. While we are tied-up in the Iraq fiasco, we are under invasion and attack. Millions of illegals in our country, thanks to borders anyone can walk across, lowering the already low paying jobs to levels a person couldn't exist. Corporate America shipping it's high end paying jobs overseas to cheaper labor, a double whammy. Gasoline the highest it's been in anyone's life time to date, soon to be seen again. Housing starts and sales down, the bubble has burst there. This is the most corrupt administration I have ever witnessed. I don't think it's incompetence at all, it's all greed. Anyone who thinks V.P. Cheney isn't still working for Halliburton is blind. He may not be on the books legally but he is THE reason they get all those no-bid contracts. His Chief of Staff, guilty. Truth be told, this administration has been at war with America for the past four years, that's what I think.
2007-03-13 12:00:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know, but I think I know where to find out.
I'd look at the common law from England that was the "soil" out of which the Constitution and our legal tradition grew. My GUESS is that the answer is yes, it would be. The phrase does not mean felonies and misdemeanors in the common usage. So it might fit.
Also, if the House and Senate have sufficient votes to impeach and convict, then there's no way to appeal - even the Supreme Court would not take the case. Essentially the phrase means whatever the Congress says it means.
There is also the 25th Amendment, which allows Cabinet officials to relieve the President of his or her duties if judged "unable" to perform the duties of office. What would that mean?
Whether anyone SHOULD seek to oust Bush is another question.
Interesting!
2007-03-13 11:33:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
In a word, no. Of course it's a moot point as the President is not incompetent, nor has he commited high crimes or misdemeanors...unlike his libidinous predecessor.
2007-03-13 11:44:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rick N 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Incompetence is an opinion, not a fact and no, it does not fall into impeachable crimes.
I really dislike all of you who continually do nothing but bash the President. Be American and support our country's president even if you don't like him, show the respect for the office.
2007-03-13 11:33:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Starla_C 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
No it has to be high crimes and misdemeaners, meaning not upholding the oath of office is a impeachable offense
2007-03-13 11:37:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
no, but that fact that bush is incompetent does not mean he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses either, libby is taking the fall for someone for ex
2007-03-13 11:33:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nick F 6
·
3⤊
1⤋