Results 61 to 70 of 89
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
02-09-2007, 03:39 AM #61
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by nittygritty
If something does in fact turn up to bring him down, it will probably mean that the powers that be no longer trust him to do their bidding. That's happened before, in a couple of cases where the bought-off Chief Executive didn't stay bought off and actually started acting according to his conscience, and in a couple of cases where the dirtbag started freelancing for his own benefit and had to be knocked down a peg by his owners. Hint: Both of the latter cases resulted in impeachment, while the former cases resulted in assassination and attempted assassination.
-
02-09-2007, 07:47 PM #62
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Re: Tough questions about impeachment as an option
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
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.
1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
Okay, so what we have here is first and foremost the requirement that there be a finding of credible evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, treason or bribery, as determined by the House Judiciary Comittee. For information on who currently sits on that committee, go to http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx.
After that a simple majority of the House has to vote on any Article of Impeachment sent forth by the Judiciary Committee.
If one or more Articles of Impeachment are ratified by the House, the Senate holds a trial. Conviction (actual removal from office) requires a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate.
The Questions:
So are we clear on the process? Good. Now, let's answer some questions to determine how realistic it is to believe that impeachment is a realistic possibility based upon the evidence that we now have available or are likely to have in the near future. I limit the evidence in such a manner because of the length of time required to move through the various phases of the process, given that the President now has less than two years remaining to his final term in office.
1. For what crime that is an impeachable offense does sufficient evidence exist for the House Judiciary Committee to make a finding and present Articles of Impeachment to the full House for a vote? Be specific.
2. Which members of the Judiciary committee do you believe will support such a finding?
3. Which members of the House of Representatives do you believe will constitute the majority necessary to ratify articles of impeachment on the charges you have specified? Bear in mind that it is highly unlikely that any Representative who supports any action that you cite as an impeachable offense will vote in favor of impeachment for that offense.
4. Assuming that the Articles of Impeachment are ratified, what credible evidence do you believe will support their prosecution in the Senate? Be specific, bearing in mind that no Senator will support charges for a policy that he has supported.
5. Based on the charges you have specified and the evidence you believe exists, name at least 67 Senators you believe would vote for a conviction.
6. Assuming that there are at least 67 Senators voting for conviction, how much time do you believe will be left of the approximate two years of Bush's final term?
7. Assuming conviction and removal from office, how do you feel about President Cheney? Do you believe that he will reverse the policies that you find offensive as regards illegal immigration?
8. Assuming that you are really ambitious and plan on having both Bush and Cheney impeached, how do you feel about President Pelosi? Do you believe that she will reverse the policies that you find offensive as regards illegal immigration?
9. Have you considered the probability that any impeachment with a likelihood of success would simply result in the resignation of Bush and of Cheney following the appointment of unimpeachable successors? Do you believe that those successors would reverse the policies that you find offensive as regards illegal immigration?
10. As regards illegal immigration, which is the topic of this website, how do you believe that an impeachment would positively impact pending legislation? Do you not believe that a Democrat Congress with a President on the ropes would quickly pass "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty) and that a President who knows his days are numbered would not ramrod through as much of his agenda in favor of amnesty and increased immigration as he possibly could?
Conclusion:
I find it difficult to believe that any rational human being who considers the facts and probabilities can go through this exercise and still believe that impeachment is anything but a massive distraction to our cause of fighting amnesty and getting illegal immigration in check. I cannot see a single scenario in which the impeachment process results in positive movement for our cause.
I welcome debate on this subject, but I anticipate that those whose arguments for impeachment and charges of treason have prompted endless commentary on the subject will choose silence over meaningful debate when faced with facts.[/quote:1g6v26kq]
-
02-09-2007, 08:06 PM #63Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
-
02-09-2007, 08:12 PM #64
Hold up, I think Nixon is incorrect, I have to think about this.
-
02-09-2007, 08:14 PM #65
How about...who is Andrew Johnson.
-
02-09-2007, 09:14 PM #66
Personally, if I were going to impeach the President, I would probably use bribery as my case for impeachment. There is always something marginal going on in politics. Between Jeb's plan to attract Scripps or the Jack Abramoff deal, that is probably the better way to go.This whole Mexico thing is getting interesting. Maybe they can also use the eminenet domain issue or something related to the NAU...mismanagement perhaps(?)I could probably gain the support of Cynthia McKinney, Keith Ellison, Jerrold Nadler, Barbara Boxer and John Conyers. Pelosi would have been helpful until she became Speaker. Now she is sitting pretty and waiting for the bigger plane, so I think that she will sit tight. As we already know, I don't support the impeachment effort because there won't be any time left in the current Presidency and the successors would not be any more helpful, and if it got to Pelosi, I believe things could be much worse. For sure, amnesty would get passed. For those that do want to impeach, a recall election would have come in handy if it were allowed at a federal level, but it isn't. Sure, I am talking out of my butt, but this is the best that I could come up with. Any other takers?
-
02-10-2007, 01:24 AM #67
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by Neese
-
02-10-2007, 01:27 AM #68
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by Neese
-
02-10-2007, 10:55 AM #69Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
-
02-10-2007, 11:03 AM #70Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
As far as "quid pro quo"...I know what "squid" is and I know what the "high pro glow" is from the dogfood commercials. Mrs Johnson said I'd never 'mount to much if I didn't finish the fourth grade... and I'll be darned if she wasn't right. I laugh...ha!!
If You Don’t Build It, They Will Come: The BorderLine
03-29-2024, 07:37 AM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports