It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But this talk of impeachment is ridiculous. You can't impeach a president for being incompetent.
Alexander Hamilton wrote, in No. 65 of The Federalist, that Great Britain had served as "the model from which [impeachment] has been borrowed." Accordingly, its history in England is useful to an understanding of the purpose and scope of impeachment in the United States.
Parliament developed the impeachment process as a means to exercise some measure of control over the power of the King. An impeachment proceeding in England was a direct method of bringing the King's ministers and favorites -- men who might otherwise have been beyond reach -- to account. Impeachment, at least in its early history, has been called "the most powerful weapon in the political armory, short of civil war." It played a continuing role in the struggles between King and Parliament that resulted in the formation of the unwritten English constitution. In this respect impeachment was one of the tools used by the English Parliament to create more responsive and responsible government and to redress imbalances when they occurred.
The long struggle by Parliament to assert legal restraints over the unbridled will of the King ultimately reached a climax with the execution of Charles I in 1648 and the establishment of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. In the course of that struggle, Parliament sought to exert restraints over the King by removing those of his ministers who most effectively advanced the King's absolutist purposes. Chief among them was Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. The House of Commons impeached him in 1640. As with earlier impeachments, the thrust of the charge was damage to the state. The first article of impeachment alleged
The constitutional grounds for Impeachment of the President received little direct attention in the Convention; the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was ultimately added to "Treason" and "Bribery" with virtually no debate. There is evidence, however, that the framers were aware of the technical meaning the phrase had acquired in English impeachments.
Mason's suggestion to add "maladministration," Madison's objection to it as "vague," and Mason's substitution of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors agst the State" are the only comments in the Philadelphia convention specifically directed to the constitutional language describing the grounds for impeachment of the President. Mason's objection to limiting the grounds to "Treason and Bribery" was that treason would "not reach many great and dangerous offences" including " [a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution." His willingness to substitute "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," especially given his apparent familiarity with the English use of the term as evidenced by his reference to the Warren Hastings impeachment, suggests that he believed "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" would cover the offenses about which he was concerned.
Contemporary comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No, 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:
". . . those offences 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 the society itself."
This view is supported by the historical evidence of the constitutional meaning of the words "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That evidence is set out above. It establishes that the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" -- which over a period of centuries evolved into the English standard of impeachable conduct -- has a special historical meaning different from the ordinary meaning of the terms "crimes" and "misdemeanors." "High misdemeanors," referred to a category of offenses that subverted the system of government. Since the fourteenth century the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" had been used in English impeachment cases to charge officials with a wide range of criminal and non-criminal offenses against the institutions and fundamental principles of English government.
There is evidence that the framers were aware of this special, non-criminal meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the English law of impeachment. Not only did Hamilton acknowledge Great Britain as "the model from which [impeachment] has been borrowed," but George Mason referred in the debates to the impeachment of Hastings, then pending before Parliament. Indeed, Mason, who proposed the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," expressly stated his intent to encompass "[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution."
The published records of the state ratifying conventions do not reveal an intention to limit the grounds of impeachment to criminal offenses. James Iredell said in the North Carolina debates on ratification:
". . . the person convicted is further liable to a trial at common law, and may receive such common-law punishment as belongs to a description of such offences if it be punishable by that law." (Emphasis added)
The post-convention statements and writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and James Madison -- each a participant in the Constitutional Convention -- show that they regarded impeachment as an appropriate device to deal with offenses against constitutional government by those who hold civil office, and not a device limited to criminal offenses. Hamilton, in discussing the advantages of a single rather than a plural executive, explained that a single executive gave the people "the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office, or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it." Hamilton further wrote: "Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment."
The American experience with impeachment, which is summarized above, reflects the principle that impeachable conduct need not be criminal. Of the thirteen impeachments voted by the House since 1789, at least ten involved one or m e allegations that did not charge a violation of criminal law.
So why did this not happen many days ago? Because he not letting this disaster go to waste. Cap and Trade by whatever new name it has now, is in the works and behind closed doors, Obama is doing the Happy Dance.
Originally posted by Spiritof1776
reply to post by bpg131313
In Response to bpg131313 - That this MIGHT not be an accident. I agree with you and have been wondering the same thing for the last 3 days. FIRST of all this happened on APRIL 20th. ANYTHING that happens on April 19th or 20th, LOOK at TWICE. The 20th is Hitler's birthday, and the evil ones think it is cool to honor Hitler. Look up things like Ruby ridge, Waco, Columbine killings and others...happened 4/19 or 4/20.
Those of us who know the TRUTH about 9/11/2001, know that it was an inside job. The Pentagon "ALLOWED" their own building to be hit. Perhaps just as BP "ALLOWED" their oil well to blow up?????
Sadly it is a brillant strategy. It DEFIES simple logic & reason. So of course we ASSUME it was an accident. BUT then LOOK at the LACK of clean-up efforts. Now the TRUTH starts to pop to the surface (along with the OIL).
Look at the 60 minutes interview of the survivor. WHY have we NOT heard from OTHER survivors???? At times 60 minutes has been USED by the moneyied interest to spread LIES.
I live in California myself, I encourage all our neighbors in the South to protest to their representatives & DEMAND better clean up efforts. I will be doing my part here in CA.
I also believe that this is a "social experiment" as to how much the government can get away with, think about it. LET'S start looking at this as though it was NOT an accident and start taking action.
[edit on 22-5-2010 by Spiritof1776]
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by dragonseeker
Our real leaders don't even run for office any more. Some at local levels but not at a national level where we need them. Why should they. The Media and crazed Partisans ruin their lives. They give up all privacy. The Republican and Democrat hatchet men dig and dig and dig to destroy them. No matter which side they go with they are in bed with criminals and crooks. Starting with the Obama campaign it suddenly became OK to go after Candidates children. Not his but his opponents.
Why would any decent person run? They don't run. If they are on the ballot, they are worthless and dangerous or they would not be on it.
Originally posted by loam
You have to listen to this!!!
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I think the most interesting part to this incident is that the same people insisting and blaming the government are just as clueless as to how they could have prevented this oil from spreading into the marshland. The Federal Government does not hold all the answers, neither do the response teams and other groups involved in this situation.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Nice to see that you are the perfect parrot of the conservative media, 'Obamas Katrina'. People will never learn if they continue to mislead and ignore the wider issue in this manner.
NEW ORLEANS — The gooey oil washing into the maze of marshes along the Gulf Coast could prove impossible to remove, leaving a toxic stew lethal to fish and wildlife, government officials and independent scientists said.
Officials are considering some drastic and risky solutions: They could set the wetlands on fire or flood areas in hopes of floating out the oil.
They warn an aggressive cleanup could ruin the marshes and do more harm than good. The only viable option for many impacted areas is to do nothing and let nature break down the spill.
More than 50 miles of Louisiana's delicate shoreline already have been soiled by the massive slick unleashed after the Deepwater Horizon rig burned and sank last month. Officials fear oil eventually could invade wetlands and beaches from Texas to Florida. Louisiana is expected to be hit hardest.
On Saturday, a major pelican rookery was awash in oil off Louisiana's coast. Hundreds of birds nest on the island, and an Associated Press photographer saw some birds and their eggs stained with the ooze. Nests were perched in mangroves directly above patches of crude.
Plaquemines Parish workers put booms around the island, but puddles of oil were inside the barrier.
"Oil in the marshes is the worst-case scenario," said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the head of the federal effort to contain and clean up the spill.
Also Saturday, BP told federal regulators it plans to continue using a contentious chemical dispersant, despite orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to look for less toxic alternatives. BP said in a letter to the EPA that Corexit 9500 "remains the best option for subsea application."
The EPA didn't immediately comment on BP's decision.
Oil that has rolled into shoreline wetlands coats the stalks and leaves of plants such as roseau cane — the fabric that holds together an ecosystem that is essential to the region's fishing industry and a much-needed buffer against Gulf hurricanes. Soon, oil will smother those plants and choke off their supply of air and nutrients.
In some eddies and protected inlets, the ochre-colored crude has pooled beneath the water's surface, forming clumps several inches deep.
With the seafloor leak still gushing at least hundreds of thousands of gallons a day, the damage is only getting worse. Millions of gallons already have leaked so far.
Coast Guard officials said the spill's impact now stretches across a 150-mile swath, from Dauphin Island, Ala. to Grand Isle, La.
Over time, experts say weather and natural microbes will break down most of the oil. However, the crude will surely poison plants and wildlife in the months — even years — it will take for the syrupy muck to dissipate.
Back in 1989, crews fighting the Exxon Valdez tanker spill — which unleashed almost 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound — used pressure hoses and rakes to clean the shores. The Gulf Coast is just too fragile for that: those tactics could blast apart the peat-like soils that hold the marshes together.
Hundreds of miles of bayous and man-made canals crisscross the coast's exterior, offering numerous entry points for the crude. Access is difficult and time-intensive, even in the best of circumstances.
"Just the compaction of humanity bringing equipment in, walking on them, will kill them," said David White, a wetlands ecologist from Loyola University in New Orleans.
Marshes offer a vital line of defense against Gulf storms, blunting their fury before they hit populated areas. Louisiana and the federal government have spent hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding barriers that were wiped out by hurricanes, notably Katrina in 2005.
They also act as nursery grounds for shrimp, crabs, oysters — the backbone of the region's fishing industry. Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds nest in the wetlands' inner reaches, a complex network of bayous, bays and man-made canals.
To keep oil from pushing deep into Louisiana's marshes, Gov. Bobby Jindal and officials from several coastal parishes want permission to erect a $350 million network of sand berms linking the state's barrier islands and headlands.
That plan is awaiting approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
After surveying oil-stricken areas Saturday, Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said the berms were the marshes' last hope.
"It's getting in between all the cane and it's working through from one bayou to the next," he said.
Smaller spills have been occurring in the marshes for decades. In the past, cleanup crews would sometimes slice out oiled vegetation and take it to a landfill, said Andy Nyman with Louisiana State University.
But with the plants gone, water from the gulf would roll in and wash away the roots, turning wetlands to open water.
Adm. Allen said that where conditions are right, crews could set fire to oil-coated plants.
Nyman and other experts, though, warn it's tricky. If the marsh is too wet, the oil won't burn. Too dry, the roots burn and the marsh can be ruined.
BP PLC — which leased the sunken rig and is responsible for the cleanup — said Saturday that cleanup crews have started more direct cleanup methods along Pass a Loutre in Plaquemines Parish. Shallow water skimmers were attempting to remove the oil from the top of the marsh.
Streams of water could later be used in a bid to wash oil from between cane stalks.
In other cases, the company will rely on "bioremediation" — letting oil-eating microbes do the work.
"Nature has a way of helping the situation," said BP spokesman John Curry.
But Nyman said the dispersants could slow the microbes from breaking down the oil.
White, the Loyola scientist, predicted at least short-term ruin for some of the wetlands he's been studying for three decades. Under a worst-case scenario, he said the damage could exceed the 217 square miles of wetlands lost during the 2005 hurricane season.
"When I say that my stomach turns," he said.
Originally posted by loam
Which of course perfectly justifies why the President and his administration have allowed BP to call all of the shots, including doing everything in their power to limit the flow of vital information necessary to address the situation.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Of course you have to let BP lead the efforts, you think the government has oil rigging laying around just in case? What resources does the government have that BP wouldn't, pray tell? Other then engineers.