Do you know why Conservatives should support Impeachment?

Question

Bush has ignored the Rule of Law and undermined our system of Checks & Balances and Separation of Powers in many ways. So far you've been tolerant of this.

But is it wise to pass along expanded and unaccountable powers to his successors?

We won't always have Republican Presidents. We will have some Democrats. Do you want them to have the unconstitutional powers Bush has seized? Powers that could be used against people like YOU?

We can't expand Presidential powers when there's a Republican, contract them when there's a Democrat, then expand them again when there's a Republican. We need a consistent standard. We need a return to Constitutionality.

It's not about revenge on Bush. It's about restoring the office of the Presidency to what it's supposed to be: Not that of a tyrant. You haven't cared so far. It's time to now. OR admit that you want a Generalissimo in charge, not a President.

Hey Moltar: DON'T challenge me to give you an answer when you don't even allow anyone to email you!

For everyone else, here is how Bush has violated his office:

He has violated Habeus Corpus. Detentions without Due Process.

He has violated our Treaty obligations under the Geneva Convention with and renditioning.

He has violated the FISA Act, which requires Court approval for wiretaps and an accommodating Court. He PROMISED to get Court approval then didn't.

He has kept Congress out of the loop when they have a Constitutional role in oversight.

He ignores Documents requests.

He has his underlings risk Contempt of Congress by ignoring subpoenas.

His extreme use of signings statements makes his a virtual Legislature and rewrites Congressional Acts.

I know all this isn't as important as getting a BJ, but I hope it'll come back to bite you in the a55 when Hillary's President.

Bruce Fein, a conservative legal scholar, deputy Attorney General under Reagan,who helped draft the ridiculous articles of Impeachment against Clinton, says that there are more serious grounds for impeaching Bush AND Cheney.

I forgot undermining our national security by outing a CIA operative (DON'T whine "she wasn't covert" -- SO WHAT!!!) as an act of political revenge. This is a criminal act!

Answer 1

Conservatives DO support impeachment...when it's called for.
You are asking us to support an unfounded impeachment...that's a different story.

Answer 2

Amen.

Of the many sins that W has visited on the world, the most obscene, in my view, have been (1) trampling the First Amendment and (2) wrongful use of the war power. We agree about the specifications...

but not the charges. Impeachment is warranted, not because it's necessary to preseve the power of the conservative hand in the see-saw of American electoral politics, but because Congress, having sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, has a duty under that document to defend it by removing both Bush and Cheney from office.

Answer 3

Simply because Bush has destroyed the once strong Republican party. Lets forget about every single law and tradition he has stomped . Consider it from the real CENTERIST wing of the GOP. Read the polling numbers regarding what they think. What we see here over and over is the "Lunatic Fringe" element of the GOP or simply kids. The real core is completely appalled at how fast the numbers have switched. The leaders admit it and are quietly rebuilding while the "cannon fodder" Malkin types are screaming that the Senate Dems are impotent. If any more controversies erupt don't discount the "good" Gop like Lugar, Voinovich, Specter, iniatating impeachment. They unlike the majority of Repubs are honorable.

Answer 4

Sorry, did you have any facts to offer, or just your opinions?

Facts would include a look at the past powers of the presidency and what was considered the seperation of powers.

Because a historic look at the presidential powers doesn't support your opinion.

Until you can actually put facts, historical reference and cite legitimate sources for all this, your opinion seems to be, well, a bunch of leftist crap.
----------
He has violated Habeus Corpus. Detentions without Due Process. Except those are for very specific instances and not with respect to criminal activity, but for activity taken on behalf of our enemies. Standard habeas corpus is a problem for people like this because it would necessitate exposing the intelligence methods by which they were found.

He has violated our Treaty obligations under the Geneva Convention with and renditioning. We've not violated the Geneva Conventions, and the fact is, rendition is not part of the Geneva Conventions.

He has violated the FISA Act, which requires Court approval for wiretaps and an accommodating Court. He PROMISED to get Court approval then didn't. No, he didn't violate FISA. There have been previous judges who ruled that the inherent powers of the presidency allowed for warrantless wiretaps with respect to national security.

He has kept Congress out of the loop when they have a Constitutional role in oversight. Out of the loop on what? Oversight of what? Details here might be helpful.

He ignores Documents requests. No, he's turned over thousands upon thousands of documents every time they are requested. It's just that the Democrats haven't been able to find any evidence, because there's been no wrong-doing.

He has his underlings risk Contempt of Congress by ignoring subpoenas. No, they are not ignoring subpoenas, the Administration is denying that Congress has the authority to force administration officials to testify under oath when there is no credible reason to believe anything wrong has even been done.

His extreme use of signings statements makes his a virtual Legislature and rewrites Congressional Acts. There is nothing that indicates these signing statements are unconstitutional or that they essentially change the laws. They are essentially for clarification.

So, again, where's the beef?

Answer 5

From 2005 - two HIGHLY regarded conservative scholars:

Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

Answer 6

Sigh...

Impeachment is supported by about half of the American population. more then half want Cheney impeached. The only reason it hasn't started is because the congressional leadership already decided that it's "off the table".

Clinton's wiretaps were approved by the FISA court. Bush's were not. Bush's have been ruled illegal.

Congress gave bush war powers when he lied to them- which in itself is classified as a high crime. yes lying to congress, even when not under oath, is a crime. That's why the white house didn't want people to testify under oath and did not want transcripts- if you can't prove it, they can't prosecute.

Impeachable offenses? that barley scratches the surface. The Bush Administration is the most criminally corrupt we have ever had. And considering some that we've had, that's saying something.

Edit: To the guy a few slots above me: The Supreme court cannot do anything unless a case is brought to it. And that has happened several times now,and most every time they have ruled agianst the Bush administration. However, the Executive branch controls the department of justice, so nothing can really happen.

Molter rocks: it's in article one, section 8.
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

*To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;*

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I put the most relevant one in * _*, though there are others that can certainly apply here. In the constitution, it says that yes, congress gets to make the rules.

Answer 7

When our Constitution was written, it was written for everyone. It does not say, this is okay for you to do but not for someone else. Subject to interpretation by the Bush administration, our Constitution that our soldiers swear to defend and protect and often die protecting is called "a God-dmmmed piece of paper". That to me signifies that Bush has no respect for his own democracy that he is trying to spread through Iraq. If all of democracy, not just the parts that suit this administration, is not respected how can we expect others to respect it.

The laws of this land were written for everyone. Justice is seemingly blind and holds no regard for race, creed, sexual orientation or political party. No one, regardless of how well you are connected or how rich you are, or what your name is, can be above the law. It has to apply to everyone. The Bush administration seems to think themselves above the laws of the land, above the wishes and needs of the American people and accountable to none for their mistakes that have resulted in the deaths of thousands. They ignore the will of the people and corruption runs rampant thru them with no bid contracts with companies that have direct ties to the White House. With any other group of people that would be considered a conflict of interests at best, at worst criminal activity. We are in a war that has lasted longer than WW2 because of a web of lies told by Bush.
Either we have laws that apply to all citizens regardless of the office they hold or we have a society that disregards them and does what they want. It cannot be both ways. Who better to set an example of abiding by the laws than the man that holds the highest office of the land.
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have earned impeachment at best and to be tried as war criminals.

Answer 8

United States vs Nixon, a unanimous 8-0 Supreme court ruling, even after Nixon stacked the Supreme Court with conservative justices, clearly shows that the Bush admin's use of executive privilege is unconstitutional.

Not the fact they use it, but in the way they have been using it, is the unlawful act.
I am completely shocked and in awe that congress is allowing them to get away with it.

Write your congressmen, and ask them why they are allowing this nonsense. I have.

Answer 9

Excellent points. Between his 700+ Signing Statements where he said that new laws would not apply to his pet projects, using between-session maneuvers to assign people to office who could never win the advice and consent of the Senate, claiming Executive Privilidge to prevent incriminating himself, using pardons to head off investigations into his administration, wiretapping US citizens without a warrant, giving no-bid contracts to his allies, and keeping troops in Iraq for four years after they achieved the approved objectives of the Resolution by which they were allowed to go there, I think Bush has pulled more power into the office of the President than any man since FDR, and the GOP-led congress allowed him to do it.

I'm waiting for the Republicans to start the whine machine when the next Democratic president starts using the same powers they allowed Bush to amass.

The symbol for America shouldn't be an eagle. It should be two fingers pointing at one another.

Answer 10

Tell the whole story ! This is the same Liberal crap! Liberals are to fricken stupid to figure out why Bush used the tools he had to protect your sorry a** from Terrorist attacks . NOT one attack on US soil and don't even blame Bush for 9/11You idiots think that was luck. .Well you will find out what will happens with a Democrat President you ungrateful liberal LOOSER .One more thing Bush has done nothing to be impeached ! He has not lied.Nancy Pigosi! Was made a fool when she pulled this same crap wasting billions of tax dollars Falsely accusing Bush Liberal Looser's like you self are to stupid to know you cant make up charges like lying to a Grand Jury something the last Liberal President did .Why? Because that's what slimball Liberals like you do

Answer 11

I just have 2 words...

hear hear!

This is the most honestly supported impeachment topic brought up here I have ever read. You deserve major kudos.