Liberals criticize conservatives for supporting our President, but, isn't that exactly what we agreed---?

Question

---- to do when we elected him?
If there is evidence against him for improper conduct, he should face charges. However, if these charges are not submitted and proven in the appropriate manner, are we justified in harassing our President while he is doing a very difficult job, especially in times of war? Should this not be considered treason?

TREASON= consciously and purposely aiding your country's enemies.

This kind of criticism is more damaging to the welfare of our troops than even the Vietnam war protests; more hate-filled than any I've heard in the past 73 years of my life.
The liberals really seem to have lost control of their ability to reason, and they're now hiding behind " free speech " to say the most un-american things anyone has ever heard.

MARVINSU:---Did I miss something? Was Bush impeached? What the hell are you talking about?--What "crimes"?
You seem to know what treason isn't, but according to you, anyone who was ever charged with this crime was actually innocent.
Do we now start impeachment proceedings since you have declared him to be incompetent?
Did you agree with your own explanation of cetizenship when Clinton was getting B.J.s in the OVAL OFFICE?

Even by your definition charges must be proven to the satisfaction of a Senate majority.

Now that YOU have decided that ordinary citizens are our "board of directors",Where in the Constitution does it give the power you describe to the electorate?

It's amazing how you can rationalize away Clinton's misdeeds, but you find no refuge for Bush who hasn't been charged with any.

MARVINSU:---Of course every citizen has a right to " demand".---They can even "demand" that Congressmen eat dog food every Saturday, but I doubt Congressmen will change their diets.

Are we all obligated to accept your judgement of "gross incompetence"?

How could you be naive enough to believe that by simply reading a few newspapers, and watching T.V., that you're qualified to judge the competence of ANY president until that judgement is already in the history books?
You are not privy to the information you need to make that determination.
You don't know the strategy being used by our political,or military leaders. You might get all worked up about some government,or military action that is really just a diversionary tactic. How would you know, if the media doesn't even know?
Why would you think it your duty to harass leaders when you don't even understand their motives?
It's true that you have these rights, but if you don't have the complete information, then you're just making noise and causing unnecessary confusion, and you might be doing great harm to the morale of our troops, and aiding or emboldening our enemies.

If the President is as screwed up as you want others to believe, why does he still have so many people supporting him, even though they hate the war; and why is his popularity higher than that of the Congress ?

Answer 1

Of course, it should be treason. The liberals never got over loosing in 2000. They hide their childish rage behind so called reason when they criticize Bush, but they were always looking for something. Unfortuantely, their rage has blinded them to the fact that we are facing a very dangerous enemy. Perhaps they will finally realize this when a democrat President keeps fighting the war in Iraq.

Answer 2

Being elected President, even by the Supreme Court, is not a guarantee of 100% public support. If that were so, the Founders would not have written the First Amendment.

If, in the conduct of his office, the President displays gross incompetence and/or dereliction of duty, he is subject to removal through the process of impeachment. Contrary to your idea that “charges” must be “proven”, the only Constitutional requirement is a simple majority vote in the House, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.

The Constitution lists “Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as sufficient reason. At the time of its writing, a misdemeanor was not something like spitting on the sidewalk. According to Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Paper No.65), it was a “Political Crime against the nation.” In other words, if Congress could not “get along” with the President, they could remove him at will.

This corresponds with the practical conduct of any organization. Any board of directors can fire a CEO at will, without proving that he committed a crime. Does anybody seriously think that the guys who wrote the Constitution wanted an incompetent President to stay in office until he violated a criminal statute?

A director need not support the CEO. Indeed, his duty is to criticize every fault of the CEO and to demand his removal if necessary. The electorate is the nation’s board of directors. Unlike a typical director, who reaches that position by intelligence, experience, and knowledge, the voter just needs to be a citizen who is not a felon. The fundamental flaw of democracy is that half of the voters have below-average intelligence and most of the other half lack experience and knowledge.

Since many politicians are afraid of losing the next election, they lack the will to act like directors. So it is the duty of each citizen to act like a director and complain about every one of the President's faults and harass him without limit, especially when all his problems are due to his own incompetence. That is not treason. It is called citizenship. Anything less is treason.

Edit 1)
Re: impeachment. It was you who brought up "charges" and "proof". That sounds to me like: "Either impeach Bush or shut up!"

Re: crimes. I never accused Bush of a crime, although "obstruction of justice" in the DOJ and others may yet arise. I mentioned only "Misdemeanor", explained the meaning, and how it should be prosecuted. You apparently don't agree with the process.

Re": treason. I never said that nobody was ever a traitor. What are you talking about?

Re: incompetence. Both Katrina and Iraq declare Bush's incompetence, but I will add another. If any airline CEO, (upon hearing in the Spring of 2001 of 53 hi-jacking threats with intent to use aircraft as a bomb) had reported to the board of directors that instead of ordering that the doors to the pilot's cabin on all commercial aircraft will be locked at a cost of $0.01 per passenger, he would rather clear brush at the ranch until after Labor Day, he would be immediatly be fired for incompetence and dereliction of duty.

Re: BJ's in the OVAL OFFICE. The last time I looked, consenting adults in privacy can do anything that harms neither of them, even in the OO. Of all the disastrous presidential acts committed in the White House since 1790, that was the most innocuous.

Edit 2)
Re: "charges". Conviction by the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote.

Re: the Constitution. The First Amendment gives every citizen the right to find fault with every elected official, to demand the removal of any Federal official, and to do so even when - especially when - soldiers are dying in a misbegotten war fought without adequate preparation and commanded with gross incompetence.

Answer 3

The framers of The Constitution were very careful to spell out treason only as actually assisting the enemy. They did this because of their own experiences when people called them traitors for criticizing the rule of the king. The founding father wanted to clearly exclude political criticism from the charge of treason. And we have always had a history of the parties out of power being free to express their opinion. And I think we have been a better and stronger country for having that right.

Answer 4

George Bush joined the nationwide shield. on the time of the vietnam war, the feds did no longer use nationwide shield troops distant places. it rather is a present day phenomenon. becoming to be a member of the nationwide shield became a manner of warding off provider. the US knowledgeable him as a pilot, somewhat high priced, and then he desperate he could fly not extra, coincidentally refusing to manifest at a actual. officers do no longer comprehend the place he became, and he had no lively duty standards. they are able to offer no information of what he did in the provider for the full final twelve months. (he does not point out what years his drug historic previous became). Clinton did no longer serve, and admits it. Cheney draft dodged his *** off. And he's a hypocritical hawk. Bush wasted the government practise qand relied upon dad's impression to work out to it he did no authentic provider. he's a liar.

Answer 5

The constitution gives us the right to speak our criticisms of our elected officials...even in times of war, unless expressly forbidden to do so.

I have a problem with a never ending war on terror (which was never declared by the congress btw) on one hand and people saying it is treason to criticize the government in times of war.

Answer 6

Should it be considered treason? No. While we elected him and we should support him we cannot try people for treason who do not support him, that would give the president the power of a dictator in a way.

People are entitled to their own opinions and while I may not agree with them I will fight to the death for their right to say and think what ever they want. The more they blast Bush and say he is breaking laws and so on and offer no hard proof the more people will see through their lies

Answer 7

Criticizing leaders is only considered treason in totalitarian dictatorships. This is America not North Korea.

Answer 8

No it is not what we agreed to, and it is not treason.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Answer 9

Not treason at all, American citizens ghave a duty and obligation to question the policies of their government.

Answer 10

Hitler was once elected into office....its not a dictatorship and everything he does should be put under a microscope which isn't and that is why all the criticism.