Should President Bush be impeached?
City Hall
Should President Bush be impeached and removed from office?
Should President Bush be impeached?
Should President Bush be impeached and removed from office?
- Yes
- 32 votes
- No
- 16 votes
Only members can vote.
Only members can post replies, please register.
Reading an article just a minute ago about California to be the 2nd state (after my own, Illinois) to propose the impeachment of George W. Bush, I found it interesting and I really think they should. I dont see his presidency doing much good, as it hasn't so far...he only seems to cause more damage and problems across the world. According to California Assemblyman Paul Koretz press release
I think it's time he's out of office I hope to see more states follow suit like this.
So what do you all think, yes or no should he be impeached and removed from office?
Though I'm nt frm the US. I think he should he removed too. I still like the days when Bill Clinton was around. He was a good man too.
no
This is a poll...hit the no button then?
Any reason's why you think he shouldn't be after the reason's stated above?
*yawn* ................next thread.
Haven't we had enough of the "Hate Bush" threads?
truth, tho I wanted to say I do hate him, it is about as true as it gets, if he gets removed, oh joy.
If he doesn't, hating him is useless.
and well, he has caused damage, again, we cannot judge him that way at this point, after all, we did not stand in his shoes and saw what he has seen, although yet again, I do not agree with his decisions, we are no better than chanting out protests to deaf ears.
I vote yes. Simply.
I don't intend this to be a "Hate Bush" thread, I just want a straight and simple answer. I'll close the thread if it gets to arguing about it like those other ones about "America" and stuff. I have heard his term has been called the worst Presidency in history. So I just wanted to get everyone's guage on it, what they think if he should be removed or not.
i dont think he should be impeached...he hasnt done anything illegal..but if you count bad decisions something wrong then yes he should be impeached....i really dont like what hes doin..wit havin our people go out to iraq and get killed in something that may not even effect is the long run...if you also consider the fact that we fought a war on terrorism in iraq to rid them of these so called "weapons of mass destruction" but we have found that there are none....the heck...we just had alot of people killed for no reason....but then again we also took down a dictatorship....but still....we are killin civilians out there...bleh...
yes, yes oh god yes he needs to get out of leadership before he gets us all killed. i mean it is clear he has no idea what he is doing with the war in iraq, and he has a hidden agenda. he must be kicked out, after all he DID plan 9-11.
fluke, you cannot name a single president who has not been called the worst, except perhaps Washington. And there can be only one worst president at any given time. I can think of at least half a dozen who are clearly worse.
What you fail to realize that Bush's term is halfway over! impeaching him now is futile....it will make matters worse! The next Pres will do the public bidding and withdraw troops ( the main topic we are headed into) and whatever that the current president has entangled this country into. If you abandon Iraq by withdrawing troops, anarchy will consume that country, as well other countries that are unstable and in need of US support. Nobody thinks of the consequences if people get their way. That will cause even greater contempt towards the US on the World stage. "Crossing bridges when we get there" won't cut it! You need a solid plan (along with back-up after back-ups) to put into place after you initiate a "Administration Change". A country's progress can not stop to pick up passengers or for an unscheduled pit stop! Remember the disarray the Nixon Administration was when Nixon was impeached? Vice President Spiro T. Agnew had to take over the mess Nixon left. Agnew then himself resigned his position after fighting the public discontent of the Vietnam War (and due to other problems) and caused the country to enact the 25th Amendment, allowing Gerald Ford to become President.
What.......wanna see more turmoil? It'll give you (and your anti-US supporters here on MT) more threads to comment about.
For all of those who have said yes, have you ever heard of the United States Constitution? It's a funny little document that forms the foundation of the United States government that you should read up on sometime.
You can certainly hate a government's policies, but that's not a reason to impeach a sitting President and remove him from office. There's a mechanism for you to do that, and it's called regular elections. If you don't like this Administration and its policies, simply vote for a candidate who espouses a different opinion and a separate set of policy priorities in 2008.
What can you impeach a President for? The Constitution says that a President can only be impeached for treason, bribery, and other crimes of equal weight (grouped under the umbrella heading of high crimes and misdemeanors). Regardless of what the generally ill-informed public may believe, there is no credible or legally-admissible evidence that the President has committed any of these impeachable offenses, and as such initiating impeachment proceedings is simply unconstitutional, and to suggest doing so both betrays significant ignorance of legal precepts as well as a utter disdain for the democratic principles upon which this nation was founded.
That is all.
Are not any of the quoted reasons I put at the top illegal? He certainly seems to be able to change the laws as they apply to him.
I am not an "anti-us supporter" I love my country very much, I do question his ability to run it however. I'm not saying I could do a better job, or that I know someone personally that could. I'm just saying someone could, I think the "majority" of americans who voted for him are regretting it these days (my opinion).
So to answer shinsengumi, do not any of those quoted reason's that the california representative gave fall into the "crimes of equal weight"?
Also to further Liger's comment...I don't believe if someone would take office right now he would immediatly pull all troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan, it would be a gradual phase out of the majority of troops I believe we would leave some kind of force behind no matter who would take office. Also, I would imagine there would be great turmoil after removing any president from office, but if there wasn't turmoil already, especially enough to remove him, then we wouldn't be in the first place.
Simply stated, no. Politicians who are clamoring for the initiation of impeachment proceedings are doing so only for personla political gain. I'll go ahead and explain point-by-point why the President cannot be subject to impeachment under any of the stated reasons.
...intentionally misleading the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war...
Whether a war is necessary or unnecessary is a political question and cannot be subject to formal legal and judicial review.
...exceeding constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq; exceeding constitutional authority by Federalizing the National Guard...
The President had the authority to take military action in Iraq and to federalize the National Guard even though war was not formally declared because Congress issued a joint resolution commonly known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) pursuant to the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 33) that granted the President the requisite authority to do so.
No court has ever ruled the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional, and as such the President has certainly not exceeded his constitutional authority.
...conspiring to torture prisoners in violation of the 'Federal Torture Act' and indicating intent to continue such actions...
While there is certainly evidence that torture was conducted at numerous overseas detention facilities by United States persons in violation to 19 USC 113, there is no evidence that the President was in any way directly involved in the torture of detained enemy combatants.
...spying on American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Agency Surveillance Act...
I assume that what you indicated is a typo and that the actual act being indicated is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA most certainly permits surveillance of United States persons (including American citizens) for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.
...leaking and covering up the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson...
Aside from the lack of substantial evidence, this count most certainly does not fall under the heading of high crimes and misdemeanors.
and holding American citizens without charge or trial.
United States law allows for the detainment of material witnesses who may not have themselves committed crimes, but who have knowledge directly relevant to an ongoing criminal or national security investigation.
P.S. Please try to use sensical grammar in the future.
My apologies I just picked up on what I did. Also, I think you just killed my thread.
Well thanks for clearing some of that up. I'm going to continue to read up on
the new information about this as it comes. I'm interested to see if more states
will follow if in fact like you said he has broken no laws like you said.
And when you do......look at BOTH sides of the issue at hand and cover your bases. Or else we'll fill you threads full of holes!
I think you should consider both sides of the story and offer a "I don't care either way" so that those of us with apathetic political views can vote.
I like how Acyx didn't even bother to read shinsengumi's second post, in which he went through the charges in order.
Yeah........me too. He must have that new program called "Post Block". It blocks out all the factual information and leaves you with useless garbage.
Acyx.......
Okay, I will step into you shoes for only a minute.
Say we did impeach President Bush. Who will then become President?
Vice President Dick Cheney!
He is next
in succession!
Now what, genius? Now we are out of the proverbial frying pan, burning in the fire! We can't "impeach" him too, because the charges only relate to President Bush! Lets see if you can get this on your own;
If by chance (and a odd one at that) we impeach Dick Cheney along with Bush, who is next in succession?
The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, followed by the President Pro Tempore of the the Senate, Ted Stevens. After that, we get into cabinet secretaries.
Assuming that no complications spring up regarding the succession, which some Constitutional scholars have been able to come up with.
Jesus Christ. There's always some movement to impeach the president-- with Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and so on.
And guess what? It never works.
Hell, Clinton's impeachment got more support than Bush's.
And do you really want Cheney as the president?
Shinsengumi was asked to go through the listed charges provided in the first post, which are the supposed basis for impeachment proceedings the California legislature is pushing for, and if they were grounds for impeachment. He did so, and argued against all of them. You ignored him. You said we live in a society of laws; shinsengumi argued that that the charges State Assemblyman Koretz listed do not, in fact, violate the law.
You also displayed ignorance as to how impeachment proceedings work. You might want to rectify that before you lecture shinsengumi, Liger, myself or anyone else on the law.
What is funny to me is to why he ommitted Article 2.........
Acyx, what does Article 2 pertains to? I have this feeling that this will explain everything. In fact let me see for myself......
Furthermore, what does the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)has to do with the impeachment of President Bush? I clearly remember Congress approving the use of force to remove Saddam's regime. Just like when Congress approved the removal of Iraqi forces during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, the Vietnam War, The Korean War, and World Wars 1 & 2.
Give me a couple of hours......I am set to wreck some havoc here.......
First of all, my apologies for not following this thread. Since I stepped down from my duties as moderator, I have been avoiding the forums because of the sheer amount of ignorance and frivolity radiated by many of its denizens. But I digress. Here, I am not surprised that Acyx has decided to make an appearance and take up a position contrary to my own, and so I am therefore bound by honor to step in once again to correct the incorrect information that he has set forth to further his own argument.
I do not personally believe that perjury necessarily falls under the umbrella of high crimes and misdemeanors, but the fact that it was undeniably established the President Clinton committed perjury distinguishes the case of President Bush from that of his predecessor and therefore does not give any legal grounds whatsoever for impeachment.
Regarding FISA, I would like to point out first that your citation of FISA is completely incorrect, leading me to doubt whether you fully understand how the United States legal system works. Regarding the more substantive elements of your argument, however, I need only point out that FISA only has relevance in regards to the NSA wiretap program as a guideline for how foreign surveillance wiretaps ought to be conducted and against who. FISA is certainly not the only piece of legislation that can authorize the government to utilize electronic surveillance. For example, the Omnibus Crime COntrol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (see 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521) also sets forth the prerequisites and procedures for conducting domestic electronic surveillance.
Here, however, neither applies, because the electronic surveillance in question is being conducted under the AUMF (PL 107-40), which authorized the President to take the necessary action to defend the national security of the country. The AUMF, which was written specifically in regards to the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the post-9/11 world, takes precedence over FISA in this situation. In short, the wiretaps conducted by the NSA without the granting of an ex parte order by a FISA court judge are not illegal unless the AUMF, enacted pursuant to the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 30), is struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.
First, let us look at the United Nations charter itself. There, one finds that even that document, which sets forth the foundations and guidelines for all actions of the United Nations, is not incompatible with the concept of preemptive or preventative military action. The resolution in question defines aggression, but in line with the Charter, it also notes that aggression may in fact be necessary under certain circumstances.
Interestingly enough, you've conveniently omitted key elements of the resolution, such as all of the preambulatory clauses and some of the operative clauses, that do not support your argument. Article 2, for example, reads as follows: "The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity." This the Security Council has certainly done, both in committee and tacitly in resolutions such as that of 22 May 2003.
I believe that I've addressed the former in sufficient detail above. As for the latter, that you would even make such an assertion means that you have a deplorable ignorance of both the United Nations and the application of international law. Resolutions of the General Assembly are explicitly nonbinding resolutions and cannot take precedence over the laws of individual member states. Only the Security Council can pass binding resolutions that compel member states to take a certain course of action, and even then only in certain circumstances. The actions taken by the United States regarding Iraq are therefore not breaches of international law; on the other hand, violation of binding UNSC resolutions such as resolution 1441 by pre-occupation Iraq constituted overt breaches of international law and were therefore subject to punitive measures under that selfsame law.
That is all.