Maybe, that isn’t clear, but remember that I asked about its relevance. What has a few people’s panties in a twist is the concept of protecting the *nation * from a proven-unworthy officeholder, that such could ever have been a consideration.
“We can’t afford to wait for the political process to work”? Funny, all this time I’d thought that impeachment was part of the political process. It’s in the Constitution and all that.
Now, a mob of citizens with torches and pitchforks surrounding the White House…they wouldn’t be waiting for the political process to work. 
Has anyone noted the irony of the fact that the reasoning behind the OP’s thesis is essentially the same reasoning that Bush gave for attacking Iraq?
We can’t wait until they actually become an imminent threat, we have to preempt them from become such. Iraq is dangerous. They started 2 wars and Saddam is nuts. He might very well attack the US, so let’s go in and take him out just to make sure. Now, I’m not claiming that there is even a 1/3 chance that Saddam will attack the US, but we can’t afford to allow even a small probability to go unchallenged.
Hmmm. Let’s see:
[ul][li]Selective suppression of habeas corpus[/li][li]Selective supersession of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule[/li][li]Denial of fair and speedy trials[/li][li]Authorization of torture[/li][li]Lying in an official capacity to mislead Congress into authorizing a war[/li][li]Causing falsified intelligence evidence, or evidence so slanted, suppressed, and misrepresented as to constitute falsification, to be presented in the absence of unbiased intelligence evidence[/li][li]Willful wastage of $20 billion of a foreign nation’s funds held in trust for them, at a time when we occupy their country[/li][li]Apparent “sweetheart” contracts with inadequate controls or auditing to a company formerly run by the Vice President, and in whose financial future he remains interested[/li][li]Failure to fund recommendations from one’s own civil engineering experts, leading to the largest natural disaster in U.S. history[/li][li]Permitting a McCarthyite-like divisiveness, where principled opposition to Administration policies is characterized as supporting the enemy.[/li][li]Public support for programs beneficial to large corporations in which the President and Vice President were involved prior to or in between involvement in politics[/li][li]Placing of Administration support behind infringements of civil liberties called for by a minority religious group that supports the President[/ul][/li]… are not “high crimes and misdemeanors”
… but lying under oath about oral sex is?
What a topsy-turvy world you live in!!
Who do you mean by “you”?
Sorry, John – that was in rebuttal to a post several ones above, and I was interrupted in completing it. No comment directed at you personally! :smack:
There’s strong evidence Bush has developed nuclear weapons as well - not personally, I’ll grant you, he was a C student - but he’s got people.
Something is dawning on me. Do you actually know what the Federalist Papers are, why they were written, and why they are relevant to this discussion?
Well, in fairness, you haven’t really presented anything but (1) unexplained assertions that you’ve read the Constitution (and therefore imply that your reading is somehow authoritative); (2) a link to a bibliography about impeachment; and (3) a link to a US Senate web page that, so far as I can tell, sheds no light on the question here. Oh, and (4) a link to a Pit thread about rolleye smilies. I mean, get real – what am I supposed to respond to when you haven’t really posted anything of substance to support your opinion?
Good Lord, man, I’ve given you quotes from a guy who was as involved as anyone in the drafting of the Constitution, and who played a central role in explaining the intent of the Constitution to the American people just shortly after the convention in Philadelphia, and you think that a list of books, authors and publishers is somehow more historically relevant or is a substantive contribution to the discussion? Is this a debate or a filibuster? Can I provide a link to my Aunt Fanny’s recipe book or the Detroit Yellow Pages and win the argument because my citation has more words? Sheesh!
I certainly know what they are. Why do you think they’re relevant? The Constitution says what it say, using words that mean what they mean. I’ve been over that *already * with you. You don’t have to agree with what I’ve told you, you don’t have to provide any arguments to rebut it, but you can’t say you haven’t even been presented with it. Good day.
Don’t you *ever * get tired of strawmen?
Why is it a strawman to use precisely the same reasoning that RTF used in his thesis. Did you read poist 131?
Sound familiar? It’s the Bush Doctrine applied to impeachment.
So you don’t even *know * when you’re doing it anymore? Your orgasm of self-congratulation over having thought up something you imagine to be clever blinds you to its essential bullshitness?
“we can’t afford to allow even a small probability to go unchallenged” is *hardly * “precisely the same” as “a relatively small risk is enough to make me extremely worried.” :rolleyes:
Look up the “fallacy of the excluded middle” sometime and get back to us.
You’re funny, Elvis!
Close, but I’d still say there’s daylight between them. I see this as falling more into pre-emption than prevention, but where one leaves off and the other begins is a gray area. But it isn’t all that big a diference.
With the perhaps tiresome distinction that the preemptive war was wholly unjustified, hence the preventive impeachment becomes more so.
IOW, you know I’m right but lack the spine to admit it, yet once again. :rolleyes:
How’re you coming on your “excluded middle” homework there?
Ignoring the snipage going on and the varying cries of “There is no God but Bush, and Cheney is his prophet”/“OMG Bush is teh Debbil ‘n’ he suxx0rs !!!11eleventyone!” –
Why on earth would anyone want to undertake an onerous procedure explicitly limited to removal from office simply to “punish” for past acts? Isn’t the purpose of impeachment (and removal after trial) to demonstrate that by “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors” the person has demonstrated his manifest unfitness for the office he holds, and is thus being removed to prevent him from committing similar malfeasance in his office in the future??
Judge Pickering was removed from office because he was an out-of-control alcoholic who tried cases while drunk and gave hideous rulings as a result. (The fact that he was a rabid Federalist whose rulings were heavily slanted towards Federalist views, and a Congressional majority was Republican, did add a political tinge – but as later impeachments proved, it was not that his decisions were Federalist in tone, but that they were illegally, drunken-rank-ly Federalist – about the equivalent of what might be expected from naming Ann Coulter a Federal judge.)
You impeach and try based on past misdeeds rising to an impeachable-offense level. But you do this to prevent a continuation of the pattern of such misdeeds into the future. By betraying the trust of the American people and his oath of office, the impeachee has demonstrated his unfitness to remain in office, for we can be reasonably sure that if not impeached he would continue such misdeeds and abuse of his office.
Now carry it to Bush/Cheney. Have they committed offenses that rise to an impeachable level? By the low Republican standard, definitely. By the higher bipartisan standard of impeach for the most serious offenses only, probably. There’s more and more evidence that lies were promulgated on the authority of one or both of them, and repeated by them, to lead the U.S. into an aggressive war favored by them for various reasons (ones it’s fun to speculate about, but which cannot be legally proven), and are deliberately (in both meanings of the word) circumscribing Constitutional protections against government power over the individual.
I think reasonable people could argue on either side of the issue here, though I’ll have to admit that my longstanding tendency to say, “You impeach for the issues that directly affect the future of the nation, e.g., Watergate” is being rapidly eroded.
A prediction: In this or a parallel thread that tends to rant about the legalization of torture, imprisonment without trial, evisceration of Fourth Amendment protections, denial of habeas corpus, etc., Bricker will be in to staunchly defend the Administration on Constitutional grounds – even if he accidentally gives himself a prostate massage researching for those grounds. 
And in approximately six months, he will recant that position as additional new information comes out regarding just how lightly lex Gonzalezianis takes Constitutional rights, or more information on how they ordered our intelligence agencies to spin the truth in order to justify the war they wanted.
Note the above: I’m defending RT’s position that one impeaches on the grounds of past misdeeds for the purpose of preventing a future recurrence of the same. Having been in the past a believer that, “Yeah, Bush is definitely an evil fuckup, with a few good points, but his actions have not risen to the impeachable level in my eyes yet,” the latest round of bush-wah has left me teetering on the fence and more an more leaning towards the impeachment camp.
For those advocating a pre-emptive impeachment, I ask you: what defense is possible against such a charge? The President will obviously state he never actually committed the crime he is being charged with (and, in fact, the crime never actually occurred) and Congress will concede that point. So the issue will come down to intent to commit some act in the future. The President will say, “I never would have done that” and Congress will respond, “Yes, we’re certain you would have.”
Having set the bar on impeachment so low, no future President will ever be able to defend him or herself against the charge. Elections will have been rendered meaningless as Congress will have acquired the power to dismiss and appoint new Presidents at will.
Nicely put.
Regards,
Shodan
Why, that would be dreadful! Throwing someone out of office when they lost a vote of confidence! Surely no government could function with leaders being chucked about willy-nilly like that! Well, except for England. And France, of course. Sweden. Israel. But outside of a few dozen others, that’s it!
This claim of sufficient checks and balances in the US system is unsupportable if the system cannot stop one man from engaging the armed forces in combat in the face of objection from his own governing bodies as well as his constituents.