Why Do Liberals Favor Burning The Constitution By Impeaching Bush?

Question

Everytime someone suggests impeaching Bush without proof of a crime or even the suggestion of one, I can't help but think "why does this people hate the constitution?"

After all, a president must have committeded a crime in order for impeachment to take place.

But hey, its only the constitution right?

Kenny J: So are you suggesting a curb my own free speech because you don't have a better argument? You're only proving my point!

Wow I'm really impressed by all the wild-eyed responses. One point I'll admitt I messed up. Yes the president only needs to be accused of a crime. He hasn't been accused of a crime so impeached would still be unconstitutional.

Answer 1

Fringe libs are cowards who will never appreciate the men and women dying so that the radical left can be free to hold its contemptible views.

Answer 2

Bush did claim that the constitution "is just a gd piece of paper.'

"Yes the president only needs to be accused of a crime. He hasn't been accused of a crime so impeached would still be unconstitutional."

How can someone be impeached if they are not ACCUSED OF A CRIME? It contradicts the definition of impeachment. He could be overthrown, w/o a trial--thus "accused", but not impeached. President Bush has not been indicted, but, it would seem, everyone else in his cabinet has. Remember Al Capone? Just because he was convicted of tax evasion doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty of murder.

Many of the actions commited by the Bush admin. have disregarded the constitution (e.g. wiretapping of u.s. citizens, torturing war criminals without trials, etc). Of course, many will argue that these actions are justified by the situations (i.e., the safety of u.s. citizens). Even if this is true, (which it's not) they still disregard that "g*d dam* piece of paper."

Answer 3

Wow. in accordance to Don C, we ought to continually drag him out bare and lynch him instant. To heck with an impeachment. IMHO, there isn't any longer lots there to justify impeachment. he's made hard calls, no longer all of that have been outstanding. it particularly is SOP for management in spite of the incontrovertible fact that. no longer easily everyone will agree or perhaps comprehend reason for his judgements. besides, conventional human beings don't have sufficient information to make an recommended determination. e.g. Going into Iraq grow to be the outstanding ingredient to do strategically. it particularly isn't any longer everyday, besides the undeniable fact that it is the outstanding determination from a protracted-term attitude. we are at conflict now- no longer with a guy or woman u . s . a .- yet with an ideology. it particularly is a perplexing time certainly. it would help if there have been much less partisan bitching and extra understanding of the placement.

Answer 4

I couldn't agree more: a president must have "comitteded" a crime in order for impeachment to take place. And that's why if your hero were to be put on trial (for illegal wiretapping, suspension of Habeas corpus, starting a war based on fabricated evidence, refusing to accept responsibility for the latter, and refusing to acknowledge failure and end the carnage), he'd be in trouble. You're in luck, though: countless people in this country would much rather know about extramarital bj's than about the things I've just listed for you. And the Democrats have no backbone.

Answer 5

Iraq is evidence of bush/cheney/rumsfeld criminal doing...
we never belonged there at all.....The first Iraq war was a crime against humanity and the 2nd is an abomination....we attacked with FALSE(not mistaken) causus belli with malice aforethought. This war of naked aggression IS a crime and the people responsible for it need to be in PRISON NOW never to see the light of day....it would be highly constitutional to impeach people who daily flout the Constitution for High Crimes have been and are being commited
DAILY by this criminal regime dubiously "elected" (oh yea the Electoral College should never have existed!)....your conservative opinions being the opposite of liberal concern me as people who are not openminded are by definition unwilling to respect others and ideas different from their own...conservatism fosters stagnation....here is the definition of Liberal....try to live love and learn we all humans and in this thing together
[e-mail]
(1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms

Answer 6

I don't really get your question. Americans on both sides of the political divide spout BS rhetoric all the time. Believe me ('cause I was around at the time), plenty of Republicans consistently called for Jimmy Carter's impeachment, and before I was around, my mother told me plenty of Republicans and Democrats called for Harry S. Truman's impeachment.

Nothing new here - move along!

(PS: I would just add here for those who have opinions on the merit and ease of presidential impeachment that it has never been successfully executed in US history, i.e. no sitting President has been removed from office through impeachment, only through death or resignation).

Answer 7

How about treason? The Bush administration outed Valerie Plame. Her job was to track loose nukes so they don't fall into the hands of terrorists, and she was outed because her husband told the truth about Niger and yellow cake uranium, which made Bush, Cheney, Rove and company look like the gang of conspiring liars that they are. So, in order to get back at Joe Wilson, they outed his wife, a formidable and valuable operative who really was fighting the global war on terror. Not like GW fights it by playing cowboy or fighter pilot. Bush is a traitor. Cheney is a traitor. Rove, Libby, Wolfowitz, all traitors willing to peddle flesh for corporate profit. They will all certainly go to hell for all the innocent blood on their hands, but they should go to prison first. Now, before all you neocon, propaganda belching "loyalists" start shaking your self-righteous fists in the sky in outrage; think about this: Did OJ do it? Was there enough concrete evidence to convict him? No. But how many of you were more than willing to brand him a murderer. Awfully convenient that the rules of evidence don't really apply when they lean against what you choose to believe. Just because there's no smoking gun doesn't mean they're not guilty as hell. Think about it the next time you want to slam ANYONE who is exercising their right to free speech to effectively criticize that traitor and his gang of traitors.

Answer 8

If President Bush KNOWINGLY put our troops in harms way for gain (Haliburton) or revenge (for his daddy), that is a crime. Clinton got impeached for LYING. Bush's nose has been growing at a steady pace. That is not burning the Constitution. That is honoring it. I love the constitute and I love America. No one is beyond being questioned - even King George.

Answer 9

Excuse me, but you have liberals confused with this president who is the one hell bent on burning the constitution. It's obvious he lied about WMD's before going into Iraq. And, it's obvious this administration tried to keep Wilson from finding out the truth about there NOT being yellow cake from Niger story and they wanted him silenced by outing his wife. There's plenty of evidence there, just a more thourough investigation which is actually happening right now. If all the dice add up and it is found that Bush lied, like all rational and reasoning American people already know, then that is not only grounds for impeachment, but it is grounds for criminal indictments for treason. That part really is in the constitution.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

Answer 10

They're only wanting to stick a big, "I" on his chest? In hopes that the American People will think all Republicans are Impeachable. So they could win an Election, without having an Election.

Answer 11

Bush even being in the White House is a violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide who gets to be President.

Throw in the charge of mass murder. That is, sending American soldiers to kill, and die, for a lie. He continually said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and a working relationship with al-Qaeda even after both were proven absolutely false.

Perhaps one day, the Democrats will grow spines and do what they must with this arch-criminal. But by the time that happens, the 22nd Amendment will have kicked in and he'll be back at his desert, I mean ranch, in Texas, getting drunk on his own time, just like he used to.