Re: Tough questions about impeachment as an option
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. . . 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.
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.
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.
Art. II, Sec. 4:
[quote:3akdhepg]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.
[/quote:3akdhepg]
So, with no accountability, Pres. Bush may suppose he can lead the U.S. down the primrose path to third world serfdom:
- over $9 TRILLION in federal debt;
SPP;
invasion by tens of millions of illegal aliens;
NASCO;
refusal to pardon Ramos and Compean (and Hernandez and Aleman and Corbett);
NAU;
eventual subjection to a future one world government headed by the antichrist.
At some point on that primrose path, treason becomes undeniable.
Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors may be indictable before treason happens.