Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll, page 2

I hesitate posting a response to this thread, because I think the usual suspects really aren't interested in an honest and serious review of the reasons to impeach Bush.

First, let me be clear about something. I have been a 'conservative' the entirety of my political life.

I believe in limited government...

I believe in free commerce...

I believe in personal responsibility...

I believe in a strong national defense...

I believe in the rule of law...

I believe in the Constitution of the United States, including ALL TEN of the Bill of Rights...

And, I believe in the decency of most people.

Any real conservative would have to have that arsenal of beliefs in their bag.

I have to admit, threads like this one drive me crazy. They usually devolve into meaningless flag waving exchanges between 'teams' and never really include an honest inspection of the subject.

But, I'll give this one a try.

Originally posted by semperfortis
...You may not like his actions, but that does not make it illegal...

You may pervert the names of all of his actions to suit your own prejudice, that does not make it illegal...

You may think it is illegal, that also does not make it illegal...

Originally posted by RRconservative
I ask for reasons to Impeach, and I get the typical
Barbara Striesand responses.

...

At least there was an actual reason for Clinton's Impeachment. You may not like the reason, but it was based on legality. Clinton's perjury charge is the reason...

There are no such charges that are even close to being legitimate that would warrant impeachment for Bush. If something trivial is brought up as a reason for impeachment, then every President from now on will face this situation.

First, let's put a few things into perspective...

Impeachment is essentially the equivalent to a grand jury indictment by the House of Representatives. It merely agrees upon the charges to be later decided upon by the Senate, who then has conviction and removal power.

I fail to understand how people who call themselves conservative argue against impeachment in Bush's case. Clinton was impeached on the basis of conclusions made in the Starr Report, where Clinton lied about a sexual affair.

As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): "The derivation of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached," but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.

Indeed, in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."

And, in The Federalist Papers (No. 70), Hamilton further explained: "Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment."

Source.

So, let's just look at some of the explicit grounds for Impeachment in Bush's case.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.

And how about this?

Bush signing statements leading to failure to fully execute laws: June 18, 2007, GAO report

The actual report. (.pdf)

See also, Bush challenges hundreds of laws

And this?

ACLU v. NSA

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the NSA surveillance program, specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of America, was unconstitutional and illegal, and ordered that it be halted immediately[1]. She stayed her order pending appeal. She did not rule on the alleged NSA database of domestic call detail records, citing the States Secrets Privilege.

On July 6, 2007, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the surveillance program.

In other words, the case ended on a technicality. If the plaintiffs had been actual 'victims', they may very well have prevailed.

See also, Bush's illegal spying: The president defied a major Supreme Court ruling to authorize hundreds of wiretaps inside the U.S.

And then there are tons of examples like this one:

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

But, imo, the most recent offense meriting articles of impeachment involves the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence.

In another thread, I posted an article by Dan Froomkin, who provides and excellent history lesson on the Founding Father's view on the subject of pardons and impeachment. He writes:

According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

Link.

In that same post, I also posted this audio from the Watergate era:

Barbara Jordan: Statement on the Articles of Impeachment

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

( Here is another audio link to her speech. )

Could it be anymore clear?

I could also come up with dozens of reasons that are less clear, but merit, nonetheless, a more detailed investigation. (But sadly it appears those will never see the light of day...)

I never believed I would witness such disregard for the principles and values that make our Nation free, just and strong.

And the problem isn't just the President, but Congress and the Judiciary, as well.

Our government is failing us....and 'We the People' are failing our nation.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by loam]