Is Impeachment a conspiracy?

So when nobody wants their president we are supposed to be able to impeach him right? Bill Clinton lied about a [you know] and had a hearing. Everyone knows it should be done. If you don’t, watch this if you haven’t already:

www.youtube.com...

Why can’t the people demand a hearing? Is it a conspiracy? Have George Bush and Dick Cheney become a threat to our national security?

Originally posted by captainplanet
So when nobody wants their president we are supposed to be able to impeach him right?

Wrong. Being unpopular isn't an impeachable offense. If nobody likes the current President, they have ample power to display their displeasure on election day. Impeachment is a procedure restricted to (to quote the standard verbiage) high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bill Clinton lied about a [you know] and had a hearing. Everyone knows it should be done. If you don’t, watch this if you haven’t already:

President Clinton wasn't impeached because he lied about a sexual act with an intern. He faced impeachment because he lied about a sexual act with an intern while under oath. Whether you're a President or a Peon, there's a legal term for that. It's called perjury, and has nothing to do with the subject of the lie...simply with the willing commission of a lie under oath.

As for "Everyone knows it should be done", be very careful with generalizations. "Everyone knows" is no more a basis for impeachment than unpopularity is. What "everybody knows" about impeachment would more than likely fit on an index card in 50 point Times New Roman font with plenty of room for marginal notes.

Link to video removed. If you really want to see it, check the original post.

Why can’t the people demand a hearing? Is it a conspiracy? Have George Bush and Dick Cheney become a threat to our national security?

The people already have a chance to pass judgment on their elected officials. It's called "Election Day". Over and above that periodic job review, if you want to demand an impeachment, you have the constitutional right to petition Congress. Don't send them e-mails. Get paper and pen, and write a nice, formal letter to your congress-critter explaining that you want to see the President impeached. Include your reasons, and include legal citations to support your points. If the idea is as popular as you seem to think it is, then your letter will be one of bazillions, and Congress will more than likely react accordingly.

No, it's not a conspiracy. See the above paragraph. It's a lack of actual basis for impeachment, combined with a Congress that's realistic enough to realize that even an 'open and shut' impeachment would probably drag out well beyond Jan 20, 2009, so why bother doing with impeachment what will get done (with considerably less investment of political capital) by the ballot box?

We love to hate him, thats why.

If you think about it, people love drama.
Maybe we are wondering how much drama he can start.

BEcause Clinton did not create much drama, someone had to create it...


ha

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


While, for the most part, I agree with your post. There is something I have to say.

We SHOULD (and are supposed to be) be able to oust ANY elected official that we feel isn't doing the job that we elected them to do.

In Clinton's case, if he was catching some oral treatment while in office, then he certainly wasn't using that time to benefit our nation. Thus, he SHOULD be impeachable for that offense alone.

Same goes for Bush, I don't know about you guys...but I don't want him there just to have us in a war for profit that is lining his, and his rich friends', pockets.



As far as we the people having a choice, there is some dispute for that as well. Our election process is FAR from trustworthy.

Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


Actually while Clinton was receiving oral treatment, he was on the phone with a senator and eating his lunch.

Nobody wants to impeach Bush because that would mean president Chaney and you want that?

reply to post by Mr Mxyztplk


HAHAHA funny funny.


Nah, I'm down with the assassi......umm impeachment of both of them.


Jasn


NOTE: Dept. of Homeland Security AND ATS mods, it was a joke.

I fully agree that we should be able to trust our government officials. I'm also fairly certain that anyone past Washington (with a few notable exceptions made for Jefferson, Lincoln, and one or two others) haven't been particularly trustworthy.

As an aside, it's not the Department of Homeland Security that you need to worry about, it's the Secret Service...and I'm not sure that the 'it was a joke' disclaimer is a big enough fig leaf. Title 18, Section 875c is fairly explicit about the transmission of a threat.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


The day good Americans can’t peacefully discus their elected officials is the day they have become a threat. Impeachment is a perfectly lawful practice and we have every right to discuss it.

We basically invented freedom speech and if you actually watched that video, people like us are being put on lists and harassed for merely inquiring about our politicians. I don’t care what list they want to put me on. I’ve done nothing wrong and if they want to make a mortar out of concerned citizen they can go right ahead. I’m not burning flags, I’m not out in the street pumping my fist, I’m asking questions on ATS.

People feel like they aren’t even allowed to say anything real about politics anymore, and THAT is detrimental to the system. Reporters can’t freely report. People can’t ask questions without getting skittish on ATS. If people feel threatened by merely asking questions, then why aren’t they a threat? It’s a rational question.

The woman who made that speach is on the list. Why?

Presidential Oath
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did he preserve and protect the constitution? Has he done any of that? He didn't even win the election where we supposedly get to make our decision. We made our decision, and it wasn't Bush/Cheney.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by captainplanet]

reply to post by SimiusDei


As was already mentioned, impeachment has nothing to do with popularity, and should be used as sparingly as possible. Our government isn't a parliamentary or coalition system where periodic votes of confidence take place. You vote for someone, and unless they're convicted of a crime, they will complete their term. At this time if you don't like them, you vote for someone else. This is how the system works, and until Congress changes the Constitution, that's how it shall remain. Throughout the history of our country there have been very unpopular politicians, so that's not a new phenomenon. Trying to run the country based on opinion polls would result in anarchy, as you'd always upset somebody. The better solution would be term limits, so there'd be fewer distractions/influence from the political lobby, and more votes of conscience.

Originally posted by captainplanet

The day good Americans can’t peacefully discus their elected officials is the day they have become a threat. Impeachment is a perfectly lawful practice and we have every right to discuss it.

Nowhere did I say (or imply) that good Americans (or, for that matter, any Americans) can't discuss their elected officials, nor did I say that we couldn't discuss impeachment.

I'd also like to point out a key word in your statement: "Peacefully". Promoting or condoning murder, even in jest, is somewhat over the line of 'peaceful discourse'.

We basically invented freedom speech and if you actually watched that video, people like us are being put on lists and harassed for merely inquiring about our politicians. I don’t care what list they want to put me on. I’ve done nothing wrong and if they want to make a mortar out of concerned citizen they can go right ahead. I’m not burning flags, I’m not out in the street pumping my fist, I’m asking questions on ATS.

I did watch the video, and frankly, it didn't impress me too terribly. As far as being a martyr to the cause (whatever the cause might be), that's not easy to do here. Burning the flag isn't illegal (as long as it's your flag, and not a fire hazard), nor is marching in the street pumping your fist (though you might have to file for a parade permit so the police and businesses along your route of march can make arrangements for traffic control). Asking questions (here and elsewhere) is a healthy habit that I try to encourage.

People feel like they aren’t even allowed to say anything real about politics anymore, and THAT is detrimental to the system. Reporters can’t freely report. People can’t ask questions without getting skittish on ATS. If people feel threatened by merely asking questions, then why aren’t they a threat? It’s a rational question.

What would you consider to be a 'real statement' about politics? Expressions of free-floating rage ("IMPEACH WARMONGER BUSH NOW", "BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED", and "KILL THE SONS OF BLEEPS!") seem to be the limit of some peoples' political thought processes these days. We've become a nation of 'discourse'-by-sound-byte, and I agree that it's a very dangerous thing.

I can't be held responsible for how 'skittish' people get when they ask questions on ATS. I don't know why they would feel skittish, unless they really believe that our national intelligence apparatus has nothing better to do than use its massive electronic intelligence network to read their board posts. Personally, I don't think I'm that important to them (which isn't to say that I'm lacking in the ego department).

I'll also confess that your rational question confuses me. Maybe it's the syntax, or maybe I just need more coffee, but I really don't follow it. If you could rephrase it, I might have an answer for it.

For that matter, if we want to return this thread to its original direction and discuss the possibilities and procedures of a Presidential impeachment, I'm all for it.

Originally posted by captainplanet

Did he preserve and protect the constitution? Has he done any of that? He didn't even win the election where we supposedly get to make our decision. We made our decision, and it wasn't Bush/Cheney.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by captainplanet]

Has President Bush preserved the Constitution? For the most part, yes. You might make some serious arguments on this point concerning the Patriot Act, but that required the complicity of Congress, and did pass a Judicial branch review, so holding the President solely responsible would be a bit difficult.

Has he protected the constitution? With the possible glaring exception of the Patriot Act, I'd say he's done a fair job. His judicial appointees haven't been the best, but they have, for the most part, been 'strict constructionists', which in a literal sense means he's been perhaps *too* protective of it in some ways.

As for not winning the election, I could just be a smart-alec (something I have trouble with at the best of times) and point out that obviously he did win, since he's in office...or I could point to another President who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote thanks to a single, tightly contested state whose voting was riddled with voter fraud. People were concerned about this President's devotion to his religion, too. Said President also managed to engineer a military involvement that brought massive embarrassment upon the United States in the eyes of the international community. He managed to get us entangled in a foreign conflict that nobody (save himself and his cronies) thought was any of our business, and to cap it all off, came within an ace of starting World War Three....but John Kennedy is widely regarded as one of our best Presidents. The point being that President Bush isn't the first President to win on electoral votes while losing the popular vote, and given the nearly even split in the popular vote, he probably won't be the last.

Why do you keep trying to make me sound violent? You’re the only one talking about violence here. They are trying to breed paranoia in everything we say. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You feel the need to warn me constantly that I might be in danger of violating some law that is only supposed to apply to terrorists. I’ll concede that it is too late to matter. To overlook the patriot act and blackwater as minor mistakes is a bit of an understatement though. He did take an oath and all. He could have a hearing for impeachment on those terms. But like someone said before, you would need to impeach both.

What would you consider to be a 'real statement' about politics? Expressions of free-floating rage ("IMPEACH WARMONGER BUSH NOW", "BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED", and "KILL THE SONS OF BLEEPS!")

How about “WE COULD IMPEACH BUSH, WE HAVE TERMS”

I'd also like to point out a key word in your statement: "Peacefully". Promoting or condoning murder, even in jest, is somewhat over the line of 'peaceful discourse'.

That’s what bothers me. Who cares? I’m not a terrorist. And that is some BS anyway.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by captainplanet]

Originally posted by captainplanet

What would you consider to be a 'real statement' about politics? Expressions of free-floating rage ("IMPEACH WARMONGER BUSH NOW", "BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED", and "KILL THE SONS OF BLEEPS!")

How about “WE COULD IMPEACH BUSH, WE HAVE TERMS”

I'd also like to point out a key word in your statement: "Peacefully". Promoting or condoning murder, even in jest, is somewhat over the line of 'peaceful discourse'.

That’s what bothers me. Who cares? I’m not a terrorist.

If you have grounds for impeachment, then a "real statement" would be to lay them out, along with the reasons why they constitute grounds for said impeachment.

What bothers you? The fact that threats of violence aren't considered 'protected speech'? Your syntax is confusing me again. I also don't recall labeling you (or anyone else, for that matter) a terrorist. Where in the name of John Jay did that come from?

[edit]
i'm too paranoid to talk like that

[edit on 25-10-2007 by captainplanet]

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


We have grounds for a hearing. His oath is in question.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by captainplanet

What bothers you? The fact that threats of violence aren't considered 'protected speech'? Your syntax is confusing me again. I also don't recall labeling you (or anyone else, for that matter) a terrorist. Where in the name of John Jay did that come from?

That you twisted the word "peaceful"

[edit on 25-10-2007 by captainplanet]

This law does not apply to people who arn't terrorists, that's where that came from.