[QUOTE=jayjay]
Not now, no. Starting hearings and investigations to find the evidence that would make impeachment a no-brainer to the general public would have been effective if it had been done in 2007, after the Democrats took the majority in the House.
It’s so incredibly obvious that Bush and his administration have performed probably hundreds of illegal actions since they took office that actually investigating, with an impeachment inquiry to power things so the White House couldn’t claim executive privilege on anything, would have turned up incontrovertible evidence, in the face of which the Senate Republicans wouldn’t dare have acquitted.
But instead, impeachment was taken off the table by the House leadership and we’ve dilly-dallied our way to 2008 with no action outside of some sternly worded letters to various executive branch bureaus who never had any intention of actually doing anything to answer them.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, that was a clearer restatement of my chief objection.
IIRC, in a Parlimentary system, the Prime Minister is selected from among it’s own members, by the that same body. The US President is elected by the people.
I will have to disagree with the suggestion that a small minority (the US Congress) overturning the will of the people should be made easier than it currently is.
A failure to impeach is not proof that they don’t have a case. It is that they do not have the votes. I am all for it because I don’t want him to escape unscathed. Even losing a vote will keep him busy defending himself,so he possibly would curtail his bone headed policies.
Another component is that some think the attempt to impeach Clinton was a payback for impeach attempts at Nixon. If they let Bush go ,then the cycle will stop.
[QUOTE=mlees]
IIRC, in a Parlimentary system, the Prime Minister is selected from among it’s own members, by the that same body. The US President is elected by the people.
I will have to disagree with the suggestion that a small minority (the US Congress) overturning the will of the people should be made easier than it currently is.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :rolleyes: :dubious: You really think a single man can better represent the “whole people” than a parliamentary body?
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
:dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :rolleyes: :dubious: You really think a single man can better represent the “whole people” than a parliamentary body?
[/QUOTE]
I think that the seperate branches (Judicial, Executive and Legislative) were intended to provide a “check and balance” system against each other, as well as to mitigate, as much as possible, the weaknesses that each has.
[QUOTE=mlees]
I think that the seperate branches (Judicial, Executive and Legislative) were intended to provide a “check and balance” system against each other, as well as to mitigate, as much as possible, the weaknesses that each has.
[/QUOTE]
I was going to say that this debate was over, that the proposition failed, & the real problem is not Madame Speaker but the conservatives (small-c rather than right-wing) in her party.
So I guess I need another thread to debate that. If I start one in a timely manner, I plan to link to it here.