Thread: U.S. Constitution

I was reading in the Constitution and found the statement below "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".....

President Bush is not faithfully executing our 1907 immigration laws. Right? It appears he is guilty of Bribery by big business and even Mexico.

What about securing our borders. Please comment.



Executive Branch

Article II


Section 3.He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4.The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

JJ,

Look under Article IV Section IV of the Constitution. It specifically states the President is responsible for security of the nation.

Here's the exact wording:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

jorge, has surendered to mexico. he has promised total submisson of our dewindling middle class into keeping and feeding all mexicans...

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think that derilection of duty is viable grounds for removal from office. By that criterion, half of the elected officials who have ever served could be removed. Given that it is a set of those elected officials (the Congress of the United States) that would have to undertake an impeachment, the chances are between zero and none that it would happen.

Sounds like your beating a dead horse again, Sippy

Mums still the word here!!

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Sounds like your beating a dead horse again, Sippy

Mums still the word here!!

SoSad, I was only providing him w/ the right section of the Constitution on the requirements to protect our nation.

I know CG is right. In one other post he did, he explains very well how the Constitution defines treason, and what the pres. is impeachable under those definitions.
Sorry for the wrong impression. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. Just providing info.

Originally Posted by sippy

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Sounds like your beating a dead horse again, Sippy

Mums still the word here!!

SoSad, I was only providing him w/ the right section of the Constitution on the requirements to protect our nation.

I know CG is right. In one other post he did, he explains very well how the Constitution defines treason, and what the pres. is impeachable under those definitions.
Sorry for the wrong impression. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. Just providing info.

Gotch ya!! I throughly understand, hard to keep my mouth shut sometimes cause it just don't seem right!!!
I like to see trouble stirred up, keeps things interesting!!

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Originally Posted by sippy

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Sounds like your beating a dead horse again, Sippy

Mums still the word here!!

SoSad, I was only providing him w/ the right section of the Constitution on the requirements to protect our nation.

I know CG is right. In one other post he did, he explains very well how the Constitution defines treason, and what the pres. is impeachable under those definitions.
Sorry for the wrong impression. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. Just providing info.

Gotch ya!! I throughly understand, hard to keep my mouth shut sometimes cause it just don't seem right!!!
I like to see trouble stirred up, keeps things interesting!!

SoSad, no worries my friend. I do like to stir up trouble as well, but only when its needed!

RIGHT ON!!!

Originally Posted by sippy

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Sounds like your beating a dead horse again, Sippy

Mums still the word here!!

SoSad, I was only providing him w/ the right section of the Constitution on the requirements to protect our nation.

I know CG is right. In one other post he did, he explains very well how the Constitution defines treason, and what the pres. is impeachable under those definitions.
Sorry for the wrong impression. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. Just providing info.

Just so everyone understands, if it was within my power I would have half of everyone in Washington D.C. (at least) up on charges of treason, breach of fiduciary responsibility or derilection of duty. 200 years ago the seat of federal authority was moved to a fetid swamp between the Potomac River and Connogocheague Creek, and the area has only gotten worse since then. If God doesn't rain brimstone on Washington D.C. then he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.