It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeachment goes mainstream, and a modest proposal

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Impeachment goes mainstream, and a modest proposal


andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

This video is worth a look - not necessarily for its conclusion or even for its occasional lapses into hyperbole. But because it puts together some lethal clips of the administration's WMD claims.. .Rumsfeld's lies are particularly egregious. The evasion of responsibility, the callowness, the arrogance and, yes, the obvious deception: all this does not diminish with time. The more we know, the angrier many have become. The anger is not a function of some derangement; it's a function of sanity.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.crooksandliars.com
blog.washingtonpost.com
www.milkandcookies.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state
$75,000 Offered For MD to Publicly Drink Vaccine Additives
A conservative guy with a few guns and rifles point of view on 911.




posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Disaffected MSM conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan (formerly Time's resident blogger, now with the Atlantic Online) yesterday posted a link to a passionate video compilation of the Bush administration's lies about Iraq.

This video, "How to Create an Angry American," (in related news links above, under 'milk and cookies') has also become a YouTube phenomenon, and ends by calling for impeachment of all top administration officials. Sullivan's placid remarks about impeachment suggests he tacitly supports it.

Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer of CA has just come out to call for putting impeachment back on the table, and the Washington Post's recent 4-part expose of Cheney's vast behind-the-scenes powers has fueled debate about impeaching Cheney as he heads for confrontation with Sen. Patrick Leahy over his claims that he is not a member of the executive branch and not beholden to its rules--essentially setting up the office of the vice president as an independent branch of government beyond the reach of congressional oversight--in common parlance, a dictator. (Relevant links above)

Any number of recent threads and posts here on ATS (two linked above) have addressed the growing fear of unbridled gov'tal over-reach and the sense that the nation is heading towards crisis, with many members expressing a sense of impending doom and fatalism in the face of apathy and lack of organization in the face of this threat.

So, now to the modest proposal. It hit me, reading the thread of the "$75,000 reward for an MD to publicly drink a vaccine" (linked above), that this principle could be applied to impeachment. A kind of public superfund to which anyone could contribute that would offer a "reward" to Bush and Cheney to resign.

In a nutshell, buy them out of office. The money would be collected and held in legal trust by a responsible organization that would be obligated either to pay out to the president and vice president in the event they do resign, or would disburse the accumulated money to charities that aid those most adversely affected by the administration's policies at the end of their term of office.

Of course, no one would seriously expect them to take up the offer, but the public shaming and the media impact could be a catalyst for positive change, and finally offer a centralized, highly visible mechanism to register public discontent--to put one's money where one's mouth is, and in a way every American understands--with a buck.

[typos]

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
why don't we just "buy" the typist that types up these 3000 page bills no one reads before they sign the bill into law??

it could:

give 30 days for the bush administration to leave the white house....hey they can't gripe about it, since well....it has Bush's signature on it, and well....who's gonna ever believe that he never read the paperwork before he signed it..

give 30 days for all the elected representatives of congress to vacate their offices....same reasoning as above...I mean if they didn't bother to read the bill before they voted into law...well...they aren't doing their jobs...right?

give 20 days for some random company in the US to set up a computer to run a program that randomly picks social security numbers of those lucky individuals who are selected to fill these seats for a period of four months....when new elections will take place and we the people get to try to elect better people into these offices...

all of this might not manage to remove anyone from office....but well, it would be fun to see a bunch of red faced politicians explain how they managed to pass a law that requires them to leave while still maintaining that they should be there...



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
A kind of public superfund to which anyone could contribute that would offer a "reward" to Bush and Cheney to resign.


That is an interesting idea, but it would never work for a few reasons, different for
each of them somewhat to, those reasons are;

Bush:
1. Already a millionaire plus the few million he's made from being the president,
so he does'nt need the money.
2. He believes that what he has done is the right thing to do, and is not likely to skip
out on his last year of office, even if you offered him twice a much money as he
has as it is, since he sees it as using the time he has left to do the 'right' thing for
America in his views.

Cheney:
1. I'm not sure how much money Cheney actually has, but I'm betting it's more than
a comfortable amount, plus he's never struck me as really being obsessed with being even richer.
2. He shares many of the same views as Bush on things, and thusly can advise him on
the ways to handle them that he thinks are the best way to do it (that does'nt mean
he's the puppet-master or anything, just more like the smarter of two people with the
same goals), and gets to see things done at least basically how he thinks they should be
half of the time.
3. He has a little over a year left in one of the most cozy jobs there is, all he really has
to do is show up at certain events, say what he thinks about stuff and basically just do
whatever he wants in the time between said, and he gets payed a nice sum of money for it.




As for impeachment as a whole, I honestly would'nt support it unless the majority of the
Congress was willing to stand behind it, and since they'll never get enough votes to impeach him,
I consider it a futile waste of time that they could otherwise be spending doing more important things.

[edit on 7/21/2007 by iori_komei]

[edit on 7/21/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

As for impeachment as a whole, I honestly would'nt support it unless the majority of the
Congress was willing to stand behind it, and since they'll never get enough votes to impeach him,
I consider it a futile waste of time that they could otherwise be spending doing more important things.


As the OP stated, the proposal is not offered with any real belief it would be accepted by either one. It is a way to make a stand and an impact.

Regarding your comments above: What exactly is more important right now in your opinion than stopping the dismemberment of the Constitution?



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Regarding your comments above: What exactly is more important right now in your opinion than stopping the dismemberment of the Constitution?


Apart from the fact that it's not being, atleast not since Bush can't do whatever he wants anymore..

Universal Healthcare, cleaner energy/climate change, tax reform especially making
the income tax do what it's supposed to, drug legalization, fair trade, sanctioning PRChina.

The list goes on.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Regarding your comments above: What exactly is more important right now in your opinion than stopping the dismemberment of the Constitution?

I've got an answer for that too...

It's not enough to merely stop dismembering the Constitution...It needs restored. With as much damage the Government's done to it over the past 100 years or more, it's going to take a lot of scotch tape...


Reduce the size of government; A lot of existing Agencies will have to go & the remaning Agencies must be made transparent enough as to streamline their operations & not compromise National Security. The government doesn't really have to do anything to earn their money, they just take it from the People...The bigger it is, the more it costs to run it & the more money it takes out of the National Economy without requiring to put anything back into it. Let's put tax money to the use it was intended...To benefit the People. The government that governs the least, governs best.

Get our economy back under control. Constitutionally speaking, our system of money is supposed to be under control of Congress...But it's not. Dismember the Federal Reserve System & beef up NESARA (yes, this one is the real NESARA, not the scam) to be as sure as possible that we get our gold/silver standard back into play with as little economic turmoil as possible during the transition.

Corporations with Citizenship Status? No! Corporations cannot & should never be given such status because they aren't even human beings or even living creatures of any kind. They either start playing by a Constitutional Government's rules, or they will be replaced (Human Resources would be drawn from American Citizens who can handle the new job openings). As it is, there's a lot of Constitutional writ & subsequent Cosntitutional Legislation to handle that job, it's just that most of it is lacking in Public Education (teach the People what it means) & misinterpretations/misrepresentations that's been causing problems.

Get the hell out of that United Nations sponsored War & get our borders secured. I don't mean closed, I mean secured. Enforce Immigration Laws nation-wide to get those illegals kicked out. The Laws don't need any kind of Reform, they need enforcement. Since we'd not be wasting the lives of our military in a war that's not even ours to begin with, let our boys be stationed in or near their hometowns as much as possible...They'll have more motivation to help Immigration Enforcement round up the illegals for deportation, but Constitutional Rights will still be in effect. BTW, did you know that the 14th Amendment contains the phrase "under the jurisdiction of" which makes that 'ol "Anchor Baby Policy" Unconstitutional?


The Judicial Branch should get busy too...Checking out the Laws that exist now for careful review over whether they're Constitutional or not. Then they'll pass on the information to Congress to get Unconstitutional Laws removed from the law books.

The President shouldn't be idle either...Besides enforcing laws that Bush has refused to do, he should be review Executive Orders & Emergency Acts & "who knows what else" from previous administrations & get rid of those that aren't Constitutional. Any new such that are put into effect will not be enforcable unless the very document itself has either a time limit or other conditions imposed that will define when such actions will expire.

The SPP/NAU & NAFTA's super highway? Forget them...That'll be dead in its tracks until such time as the People express their opinions & only then should any decisions be made...And even then, subjected to Congressional deliberation before enacted.

Restore the "checks & balances" system that previous administrations have upset...Best guide for that is (again) the Constitution.

I was typing this on the fly...Did I miss anything?



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
MidnightDstroyer,

On many points I strongly agree, particularly scrubbing the books of unconstitutional statutes and reigning in the abuse of executive orders, which allows the president to legislate by fiat, totally unchallenged.

But we've strayed so far and institutionally things have been so distorted that common sense proposals that restore basic Constitutional rights and perogatives now look revolutionary.

In this sense, cleaning house and restoring the will of we the people through constitutionally provided means is the only way to restore the desperately lacking balance that drives the government to enlarge its powers. Exercise our rights as the boss to get things back on track for the common good. No one less than Jefferson and Lincoln encouraged us to do so.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
This is a must watch; it was originally broadcast July 13th 2007 on Bill Moyers Journal... I watched it from my hospital bed tranfixed by the conservative scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the articles of impeachment on Clinton and John Nichols who wrote the book "The Genius of Impeachment" agreeing more than disagreeing on the crimes of bush minor. It highlighted more than anything that despite Republican attempts to paint this as a Democratic/liberal attack on our president (hear that Semper?) the discontent and concern about the bush/cheney team is wide spread and across the board with 45% in favor of impeaching bush minor and 54% in favor of impeaching Cheney.

Like I said this is a must watch.

www.pbs.org...

[edit on 21-7-2007 by grover]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I guess Bush could view impeachment as an act of disrupting government functions and enact......

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency."

Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."


The directive specifies that, following such an emergency, an "Enduring Constitutional Government," comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government," coordinated by the President of the United States, will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress[1].


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Sigh! It looks like Congress is going to need Judicial backing on this one (The Constitution requires Judicial backing Congress for Impeachments anyway)...

But what if a few million Citizens decided to show up on the front porch of the White House? Would even that get Bush/Cheney's attention off the SPP/NAU/Bombing the Middle East back to the Stone Age?

Gee, it's not like there wasn't a hundred or so V's (for Vendetta) already in D.C. back in April this year, promently displaying a big "Obey the Constitution" sign already...Even the Washington Post covered that little gathering!

So I take it to mean that Bush never looks out the window or reads the local newspaper?

Maybe it would take a million or two?



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Sigh! It looks like Congress is going to need Judicial backing on this one (The Constitution requires Judicial backing Congress for Impeachments anyway)...

But what if a few million Citizens decided to show up on the front porch of the White House? Would even that get Bush/Cheney's attention off the SPP/NAU/Bombing the Middle East back to the Stone Age?

So I take it to mean that Bush never looks out the window or reads the local newspaper?

Maybe it would take a million or two?


Marchers or dollars?

I hear you. But you've got to get those millions to Washington, charge them up.

That's where the the "throw them out" fund comes in. Imagine if all those millions who wouldn't get off the couch to march, but who supported the cause could be counted in real terms? Anybody can spare five bucks for something they believe in, with a purpose. With a visible sign of discontent in the millions of dollars as the motivator, you could entice them to be more active, and point to something literally bankable to recalcitrant members of congress.

Also, whatever your gripe with the administration (and the list is long and ever-growing), you can participate--it would be inclusive.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I did specify, in the second paragraph above, million Citizens...Now that that's out of the way...


Five bucks ain't worth anythin' anymore...The Federal Reserve literally whips up as much of it as they want out of thin air anyway, so money isn't much of an incentive. Besides, most people would have to travel long distance to reach the east coast anyway. No, paper money isn't worth it...But just regular 'ol paper? Yeah, we may get somewhere with that.

Notice how Bully Boy Bush & His Corporate Croney Gang make use of paper to strip the Constitutuion of it's value? Think of how many hundreds or thousands of tons of paper can a few million Citizens can dump on Washington D.C...That's "paper," as in letters/faxes, even phone calls! Very little cost & no travel required! As a recent example, remember the Immigration Amnesty Bill that got shot down? Thousands of letters & faxes hit the Congress...Also, enough phone calls from disgruntled Citizens caused their phone-center to break down! That's what got Congress to kill the Bill.

Sure, people could get to D.C. in huge numbers (how many people live in the greater metropolitian New York area anyway? There's the millions
), but the vast majority of People in this country would have to travel hundreds of miles to get there.


PS: Oh yeah, I did forget something in one of my earlier posts...
We need to get out of the United Nations! The War is their idea & we're just "following orders" from the UN that give Tyranny just that extra bit of push on the home front. The more we "crank up the volume" over there, the faster those insurgents recruit even more combatants! Besides that, the only real reason the US is there is the Big Oil Corps want it...If we also encourage more research & development in alternate power sources, we'd have no reason to stay there.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Awwww, really?
You're actually going to try to impeach him now?

But we were having such a great time watching you guys spiral down toward dictatorship. I mean, I'm really going to miss that comedy show... what did they call it? You know, the one where that monkey talks to the country from an oval room and tells them about the rights he's taking away...


Humor set aside. I'm very worried about you guys. We on the outside are watching a fellow free nation getting dragged through the political mud, slipping back into the dictatorship we all pride ourselves on being free of.

The worst part is, we can't do anything about it. Not unless the people of America request our assistance.

Until then, all we can do is ensure our own governments don't fall into the same sinkhole... or at least try.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
So you want to bribe people.

That's disgusting and illegal. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
So you want to bribe people.

That's disgusting and illegal. Sorry.


No, shame them into honoring their oaths to the Constitution, by using the one thing they understand: money.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
He is not going anywhere.....He has done a good job and the left is pissed because their fat ass post boy from AK got ruined in his last years..lol...Get over it Bush is here to stay, and I say thank God.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
In a nutshell, buy them out of office. The money would be collected and held in legal trust by a responsible organization that would be obligated either to pay out to the president and vice president in the event they do resign, or would disburse the accumulated money to charities that aid those most adversely affected by the administration's policies at the end of their term of office.


en.wikipedia.org...

Bribery is a crime implying a sum or gift given that alters the behavior of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person. It is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the receiver's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or any promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

It is a form of political corruption and is generally considered unethical. In most jurisdictions it is illegal, or at least cause for sanctions from one's employer or professional organization.


You are conspiring to commit bribery and treason against the United States of America and its Constitution.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
When Speaker Pelosi first took the impeachment option off the table, a lot of people were disappointed. I was one of the few at that time who was able to explain why she did it.

The Dems know that every naughty thing that Bush only increases their margin of victory in November of '08. Plus, the cruel fact of the matter isthat they'd actually like to have all those new and dark powers that Bush has gathered unto himself.

By NOT contesting him, they create new precedents which they can and will use for their own agendas. Our one best option at this point really is to vote for third party candidates when and where possible. Failing to do so will only 'prove' to the people now in office that they 'own' us. Yes, they'll mis-read us and there will be heck to pay for it...but they'll burn that bridge when they get to it.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It is my understanding, as someone above posted, that this would constitute bribery and that bribery for the purpose of influencing the political process is illegal. It may even be illegal to propose such a thing. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. It is my understanding that organizing and planning to influence the political process through monetary gifts or donations, whether public or not, and whether well meaning or not, is illegal. Again, I could be wrong. I'm not even certain it would be legal for someone who has taken the oath of office to step down simply because enough money was offered to them. You could be committing a crime by even discussing this, and they might likewise commit a crime by accepting the bribe. I don't know.

As for impeachment, while I too am concerned, and regardless of whether I agree or disagree with impeachment, the fact remains that impeachment requires that it be proved that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. I'm not convinced proof exists of such crimes in a strictly legal context, no matter how much I vehemently disagree with and ethically oppose the actions and steps taken by the current administration (but then again, I vehemently disagree with and ethically oppose the actions of multiple former administrations as well.)

I respect and commend your intentions, but I question the legality and feasibility of this. I wish you fortune and wellbeing, regardless.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join