The Issue
Okay, I have read thread after thread and post after post of riled up site members touting "impeachment" as a realistic and desirable option for removing this President from office and somehow solving the immigration problem. Along with impeachment is a lot of loose talk about prosecution for "treason." I have attempted to address these comments as they have come up, pointing out that these are not viable options. The responses to my posts have ranged from claims that I am somehow "defending" either Bush or the illegal aliens to slient dismissal. So the rants continue to clog the boards and precious energy is sapped that would be better directed at making sure that Congress never gets a pro-illegal bill to the President's desk.
Because you guys seem so damned adamant about pressing your impeachment disniformation, I would like to use this thread to engage in a dialogue in which I set forth some questions whose answers will demonstrate the futility of the impeachment/treason approach. I will begin by providing some factual information on the process, which any of you may feel free to rebut if you have contrary factual information. I will then proceed to the critical questions. I challenge each and every one of you calling for charges of treason and/or impeachment to engage in this debate so that we may resolve this matter and move on.
The Facts
First, let's look at treason. The sole legal definition of treason in this country arises under Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. It reads:
Quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Okay, did you get that? Now I don't like most of these countries from which the illegal immigrants are flowing any more than most of you do, but they are not declared enemies. Period. Illegal immigrants are laewbreakers, but they as a group are not enemies either. At this point, even the racist groups whose rhetoric calls for the conquest of the American Southwest are not, legally speaking, enemies, because our government is actively FUNDING THEM with our tax dollars. So the actions that may be construed as treason require an enemy to whom the accused has "adhered" or given aid and comfort, and there is no declared enemy in this case.
Here is the list of successful prosecutions for treason in the entire history of this country:
John Brown, convicted of treason against the state of Virginia
Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose." Subsequently pardoned by President Ford.
Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion
Mildred Gillars, "Axis Sally"
Hans Max Haupt, convicted of treason and sentenced to life in prison for aiding his son who was a spy for Germany during the Second World War
Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason, but eventually pardoned by President Kennedy and deported to Japan
Martin James Monti, USAAF pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944.
In every case the accused either abetted a declared enemy during wartime or else engaged in an armed rebellion against the United States.
So treason is out UNLESS AND UNTIL there is some evidence that President Bush has aided and abetted an actual declared enemy of the US.
Now let's move on the impeachment. Authority and rules for impeachment arise under the Constitution as follows:
Art. I, Sec. 2:
[quote:1g6v26kq]The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.