Do they have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than it's authors.
2007-07-15 12:02:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no impeach
2007-07-15 12:06:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
There's also the political aspects.
As a matter of law, its a no-brainer. I won't comment about how some people may not have any brains. Let's move past that.
The US Supreme Court has confirmed Bush violated federal laws (18 USC 2441) and his own attorneys have admitted he violated federal laws (2 USC 192, 18 USC 2501, 18 USC 1001). So, making out a prima facie case for impeachment is trivial.
The real question is whether it is politically a good idea. And on that question, people can reasonably come to opposite conclusions.
2007-07-15 19:35:16 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's astounding how ignorant these redstaters are on Constitutional law let alone what it says about impeachment and the reasons for it.
"George Mason (1725-1792), the father of the Bill of Rights (1791-2002), argued at the Constitutional Convention in favor of providing the House of Representatives the power of impeachment by pointing out that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."
James Madison (1751-1836), the father of the U.S. Constitution (1788-2007), added that "if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty."
Of course, Bush has long been connected in a suspicious manner to Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others. Madison would probably have called for Bush's impeachment when Bush first refused to investigate or hold anyone accountable for leaking Valerie Plame's identity, or rather when Bush lied us into the war in the first place, or when he confessed to illegal spying, or when he detained people without charge and tortured them, or when he overturned laws with signing statements or refused to comply with subpoenas, and so on and so forth. Madison wouldn't have wanted to see his Constitution tossed aside until the moment Bush commuted Libby's sentence.
But he certainly would have acted now if not before."
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31293
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
2007-07-15 19:18:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it will hurt (The Republican Party)...
Um, dude... Haven’t you been paying attention? What “Constitution” what “Law”?
The current administration has raped and pilfered our Constitution and the only attention they pay to our laws is: is how to get around them.
It's a Red State thing... we may never understand.
2007-07-15 19:11:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Impeachment is not intended to "fix the government". Study your law on impeachment. And, there is no magic pill that will fix any government, anywhere or anytime.
2007-07-15 19:06:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
THANK YOU GEORGE WE LOVE YOU...millionairs club...
2007-07-15 20:04:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
go home,fix yourself a good one and chill !
2007-07-15 19:08:13 · answer #7 · answered by avenger 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why yes we do. Damn sharp of you to notice.
2007-07-15 19:09:33 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They seem to think they do.
2007-07-15 19:05:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋