They lied to Congress about Iraq (and, for those who say "no, they didn't," please point me to where those WMD's are).
They've broken the fourth amendment with their warrantless wiretappings- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
They've broken the eighth amendment with their endorsement of torture- "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Among other crimes. So, where's the outrage and the actions by Congress? If nothing is done, then this sets a dangersous precedent. One which, sooner or later, another President will use to do whatever they want to do also.
2007-08-03
00:03:51
·
13 answers
·
asked by
freewainwright
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Wow. The stupidity and lack of caring for this country is just showing through. This topic is not a red state vs. blue state argument. It is between what is right and what is wrong. Your President and VP have committed crimes and you don't care. Hell, some of you applaud them for it.
For those who say "they didn't break any laws, etc." can you read? The amendments are right there in front of you. What they did is documented fact. What about those two do you not comprehend as breaking laws?
What a sad group of people this country appears to have. The founding fathers would be ashamed.
2007-08-03
11:42:54 ·
update #1
You know, that's a really good question.
Instead of assuming that there isn't an answer and listing your same erroneous charges, maybe you should shut up and listen and think for a change.
There are reasons why impeachment hasn't started, and they have a lot to do with the fact that you're totally mistaken on all points.
2007-08-03 00:14:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by open4one 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
They did not lie to congress, a lie is the purposeful attempt at deceit; wmd came from reliable intel from our allies plus Saddam claimed to have had them. Try entering an airport these days and claim to have a gun. Your second paragraph answers itself "unreasonable", if a warrant was issued, reason was found. If you can't think for yourself, maybe it's time to turn off the radio especially if you choose not to get a real education.
Andrew Johnson was impeached May 26, 1868 and later aquited.
Bill Clinton was impeached December 19, 1998; no witnesses were called, he was later aquited February 12, 1999. Apparently the U.S. Senate does not want the U.S. presidential image soiled with an actual impeachment.
2007-08-03 00:25:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nik 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The War Powers Act, which was passed in the wake of the Vietnam War in an effort to reign in Presidential war power, but which actually enhances that power greatly and gives the President the ability to commit U.S. military forces without seeking Congressional approval under a wide variety of circumstances. As summarized by Wikipedia, the Act “requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.”
2016-05-17 06:33:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some are correct, but the error is the Democrat-V-Republican. It isn't about that, never was.
An Impeachment is the Whatever body of legislature here -v- (any name here)
In USA that would be the Senate.
History of federal impeachment proceedings
Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 17 federal officers have been impeached:
* Two presidents:
o Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate.
o Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate.
* One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
* One Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him).
* Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted.
* Twelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from South Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate
Many mistakenly assume Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him (by wide margins) and did report those articles to the full House, Nixon resigned prior to House consideration of the impeachment resolutions. Both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate were near certainties; Nixon reportedly decided to resign after being told this by Senator Barry Goldwater.
I would still like to think that a human being is the high water mark over the party affiliation.
The dangerous precedent was voted on and allowed to pass by We the Citizens, it is called the Patriot Act, nothing patriotic about it, unless you are a Totalitarian.
Homeland Security Act is a pretty funked up piece of legislation that we also allowed or were scared into believing was for some good.
Buy another American Flag from China and wave it for whatever country you can or are allowed to.
This question and these answers just set off so many Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and other black ops bots that is almost laughable.
2007-08-03 01:02:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither the President or Vice President have done anything illegal. Nor do the Democrats have the votes to impeach.
If you really want them to waste their time, go ahead. The more they waste their time on things like this the less they can ruin our country before they get voted out.
2007-08-03 00:21:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because were screwed! They know it, we know it. Now they're just holding on for dear life and hope like hell that we all make it to our next election, without half of our country being blown in to the sea because Thing One and Thing Two can't stop pissing people off
2007-08-04 14:16:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by xxx 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
because they want easy acces to the white house and know the longer this drags out the easier there path in is.
also, do not think the democrates care about you, they care about the corperations paying for there life style.
propaganda-look it up. we need to oust the democrats entirerly. don't be fooled again and again and again.
silly americans. silly silly americans. i sapose you think we had to fight the revoultion even though canada never did and they have full medical care - free public transpotation and know the truth about 9-11 unlike u.s. citizens.
i hope this was educational for you. god see's you naked.
2007-08-03 00:22:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
perhaps because Bush hasnt broken any laws after all?
we've all heard these Lib taking points 1000's of times. Its all just a lot of hot air.
2007-08-03 00:24:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
They do not currently have enough votes in the Senate to convict him! They have enough to charge him, but there are too many Republicans to ever get an impeachment. That is exactly what happened with Clinton. They could not get the votes at the trial to impeach him.
I hear it said all the time that Clinton was impeached.
Well, Clinton was not impeached, nor has any president EVER been impeached, though Nixon would have been! He got to retire early, collect his pension, build a library and pardoned for all his crimes!
Wormwar 1, actually he is not wrong. Perhaps not well put, but not wrong!
A PETITION
for
The Impeachment of George W. Bush
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHEREAS George W. Bush essentially murdered 6000* of his own countrymen, by allowing terrorists, in the face of specific intelligence and warnings by domestic and foreign agents, to highjack jumbo jets and use them as bombs against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and,
WHEREAS George Bush thereby caused damage in the millions of dollars, first from the initial incident and subsequent cascade of consequences which fell primarily on the shoulders of working class people, while he bailed out his rich cronies, and,
WHEREAS George W. Bush then perpetrated an illegal war against the country of Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent civilians, women and children, mostly from starvation and exposure, in a pretext of “making war against terrorism”, which was, in reality, a clandestine plot to install a puppet government and begin to extract the oil and heroin resources of the region, and,
WHEREAS George W. Bush has surreptitiously used the “terrorist” issue to suspend the Constitution of the United States, mainly through the USA PATRIOT Act, suspending the rights of habeas corpus, legal representation and lawyer-client privilege while increasing the use of eavesdropping, snooping and electronic surveillance furthering the draconian restrictions to personal freedoms characteristic of this illegal regime, and,
WHEREAS George W. Bush has telegraphed his intention to withdraw from the family of man and the civilized global society by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol and the World Court, preferring to pursue a course of world and space domination,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the People, Undersigned, being citizens of the United States and registered voters in the Counties and States so indicated, HEREBY Demand that the Congress of the United States begin immediate impeachment proceedings against said George W. Bush, pretender to the office of the President of the United States, and further demand they vigorously pursue all civil and criminal penalties to each and every member of this administration, agency employees, and members of the congress or intelligence apparatus who willingly and with malice aforethought participated in these heinous crimes.
*Footnote 1. These are official U.S. numbers. The death-toll at the World Trade Center was placed at 6,700 in September, 2001. The figures were used liberally by pundits and politicians alike to fuel the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the U.S. war on Afghanistan. The initial civilian death- toll from U.S. bombing in Afghanistan was 20 to 37. The U.S. death-toll was continually revised downward while world health officials elevated the Afghani casualties. The numbers became equal around June 2002. The present numbers are: U.S. deaths 2,919; Afghani deaths 3,215. So, George Bush’s body count remains nearly constant...the victims’ identities have changed. (for an excellent discussion, see Marc Herold at www.cursor.org/stories/heroldon911.htm)
*Footnote 2. Figures for Afghani deaths are from U.S. bombing alone. They do not include the thousand who died from starvation and exposure as a result of U.S. closure of relief supply routes from Azerbijan and Pakistan.
2007-08-03 00:21:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
because the democrats are in bed with the republicans.
Hillary is a neocon, too.
2007-08-03 00:06:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋