PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Politics Debates
     Impeach Bush--why?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
ender475

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NEUTRAL POST! PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME!

I have heard people arguing about impeaching Bush lately--I was wondering for reasons why he should be impeached.



(Edited by ender475 10/9/2005 at 2:51 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:50 PM on October 9, 2005 | IP
wekcia

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From what is known by the public there are no legally valid reasons for impeachment.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 10:15 AM on July 13, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BUSH is doing a great job.. do you realize there have been no terrorist attacks on USA soil since 9/11, thanks to BUSH.

I say we put BUSH's face up on Mt Rushmore, no other president except Franklin Roosevelt has gone thru so much, speaking of Roosevelt how come his face is not on Mt Rushmore?
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:00 AM on October 6, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, actually, Roosevelt is on the mountain... George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln are all depicted. They represent the first 150 years of our nations history, as well as certain symbolic aspects of it. Since FDR was in office from `33 to `45, and Mt. Rushmore was completed in 1941 it would have been the height of hubris to add him then. (FDR was also a terrible president, WWII aside, his polices did more to destory our system of self-reliance and personal freedom than any president todate.)

Proponents of impeaching President George W. Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.

This is a quick list of pro-impeachment advocates' rationales as suggested by commentators, legal analysts, politicians of the Democratic Party, the Center for Constitutional Rights and others.

However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

NSA warrantless surveillance

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court majority held that neither the AUMF nor the president's role as Commander-in-Chief trumps explicit federal law, in this case the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Presumably the same would hold for FISA.
In January 2006, the Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that:

"...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

In addition, the American Bar Association, in February 13, 2006, issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis opines that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.

Unconsitutional of Invasion of Iraq

Attorney Bonifaz argues for a Bush impeachment, alleging that the war against Iraq was undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress and is thus illegal.

In February and March 2003, John Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress in John Doe I v. President Bush, a constitutional challenge to President Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz argued in court that the President’s planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution.

As a corollary to his lawsuit, Bonfiaz has argued publicly and in writing that Bush ought to be impeached for this. However, Bonfaz's lawsuit was dismissed in February 2003 and in March 2003 the dismissal was upheld on appeal. Regarding the dismissal, Attorney Bonifaz said:

"They’re not supposed to sideline... Courts cannot shirk from responsibility when it looks like a political battle."

Regarding the affirmation of the dismissal, the appeals court held:

"...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."

Nevertheless, Francis Boyle (professor of international law at the University of Illinois) also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.

Violations of the U.N. Charter and U.S. Constitution

By Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. Such would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.

General Abuses of Power

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Constitutional law expert Glenn Greenwald attributes Bush's interpretation of the authority of the president to a series of legal memos by John Yoo, identifies this expansive interpretation as the common thread shared by the other Bush controversies, and indicates that this interpretation is based on combining the powers of all three branches of government in the single person of the President, and is therefore the diametric opposite of the text and the Founding Fathers' intended meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. The Draft Impeachment Resolution by Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (about oral sex), George W. Bush - in the eyes of many - has done far worse. For the record, I am oppossed to impeaching Bush (as I was to Clinton's impeachment). I do beleive a full and independant investigation into possible war-crimes is worth pursuing however.

(Edited by Michigan 10/7/2006 at 10:45 AM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 10:44 AM on October 7, 2006 | IP
gman

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good post Michigan.
Bush probably is guilty if a number of misdeamenors accused of. High crimes? I doubt it. What he's most guilty of, to the left's dismay, is creating an arena where the enemies of his people gather together to engage in combat with armed Americans and regularly get spanked. Versus having the leisure time and assets to take their battle to American (unarmed, unprepared) citizens.  
Bill Clinton should not have been impeached for his philanderous activities. Lack of respect for the people and the office is not an impeachable offence. The action however probably saved him from impeachment and possibly prosecution for creating waivers that opened the door for sales by a california company of missile guidance systems to China who now can and do target U.S. cities for a massive donation to the democratic party.
Creating the single most dangerous scenario the U.S. faces and ignores since the cold war.
When it comes down to it, unlike Nikita Krueschev, the Chinese, walk the walk without talking the talk.

By the way, my condolences to Michigan for it's loss. Bo was our greatest nightmare and a class act. We will miss him too. After all he was a Buckeye by birth.


-------
The Government that governs least, governs best.
R.R.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 08:23 AM on November 27, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bush probably is guilty if a number of misdeamenors accused of. High crimes? I doubt it. What he's most guilty of, to the left's dismay, is creating an arena where the enemies of his people gather together to engage in combat with armed Americans and regularly get spanked.


This statement is hopelessly drowned in naivety. The situation in Iraq isn't like that at all anymore. Major engagements between American soldiers and insurgents ended a year ago. Now it's almost all roadside bombs against American convoys that happen to get involved in the ethnic wars of Baghdad. The hundreds of Iraqis that die every day in Iraq aren't killed by Americans anymore.

Versus having the leisure time and assets to take their battle to American (unarmed, unprepared) citizens.  


How, exactly, would they accomplish this? Who needs an AK-47 to take over an aircraft and blow it up? The War in Iraq isn't making America any safer whatsoever. If anything, it's making America more dangerous; we're hated more than we were before, and the recent report filed by the NIE concluded the war is creating more terrorists than it's killing.

Creating the single most dangerous scenario the U.S. faces and ignores since the cold war.


Russia maintains 1,000 more ICBM's on hair-trigger alert than the United States. The prospect of nuclear war really is not an issue anymore. That's why we've got the U.N.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:16 PM on November 27, 2006 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JetSunn at 11:00 AM on October 6, 2006 :
BUSH is doing a great job.. do you realize there have been no terrorist attacks on USA soil since 9/11, thanks to BUSH.

I say we put BUSH's face up on Mt Rushmore, no other president except Franklin Roosevelt has gone thru so much, speaking of Roosevelt how come his face is not on Mt Rushmore?


You're kidding right? I can't recall a single terrorist attack during the clinton admin...and if terrorism really has gone down explain the england and spain train bombings.

Anybody who kills 4% of the population of the country is not a good country. Harry Truman Deja Vu.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:28 PM on April 30, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the National Review...

"So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
"




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:58 AM on May 1, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:58 AM on May 1, 2007 :
From the National Review...

"So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
"





Of course, the only one that it US soil was the WTC bombings. Then I could just say the same thing for Clinton, he did a good job stopping terrorists.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 06:58 AM on May 3, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How, exactly, did he do a good job stopping terrorists?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:18 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 6:18 PM on May 3, 2007 :
How, exactly, did he do a good job stopping terrorists?


Well first of all terror creates terror. There was massed hatred for Islam after 9-11, which from the Mideastern point of view is nothing short of terrorism. The US acted on this, literally becoming the terrorist when they attacked Iraq. That in turn helped more Iraqis go against these 'terrorists'. Which explains the Civil war we see there today.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:10 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I'm not seeing how Clinton did a good job stopping terrorists.  And in case you don't remember, the US attacked Iraq after they invaded Kuwait.  During the peace treaty that followed Iraq agreed to certain concessions to end the war.  For 12 years they failed to comply with those concessions and the U.N. sat around twiddling their thumbs.  Now if you are saying that, despite our alliance with Kuwait, we should've allowed Iraq to invade and capture them then that is another story.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:53 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
masterx

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look at his approval ratings.  35%!!  He is not fit for the american people!  This is an all time low!  The only reason NOT to impeach Bush, is that Cheney would take office!
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:55 PM on May 4, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

8:54 PM

We just don't like people with a back bone. Some one that says if you don't do so and so we will invade you, and when that some one doesn't do so and so he actually invades like he said he would, not look for some excuse not to.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:20 PM on October 9, 2007 | IP
sstrang

|        |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"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."

Bush has not committed any of these acts, and thus he is NOT eligible for impeachment. Simple as that.

However, when Bill Clinton refused to kill or extradite Bin Laden, and when he lied to Congress and the American people, he indeed was eligible for impeachment, and indeed was impeached.  
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:30 PM on October 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All man can't we Impeach him just because we want to?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:49 PM on October 11, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.