Sen. Hagel [R] suggests impeachment as an option

Ivan Seeking

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...lines-politics

This is another headline that about knocked me out of my chair. I don't know if he's serious or just applying pressure to the WH. I don't see how this would benefit his own political ambitions... at the least it is a very risky thing for a Republican to say.

Astronuc

then there are … ways to deal with that

Wow! That is pretty serious.

Ivan Seeking

No, this is pretty serious.

Astronuc

I'll second that!

Art

It will never happen unfortunately. Even if they started now by the time they got a case prepared his term would be over anyway.

turbo

It should happen anyway. He should leave in disgrace, and without the pensions, SS protection, and other perks that ex-presidents suck up for life. He should also be left at risk for extradition for war crimes, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales.

Art

Be nice to see his pal Yo Blair in the dock alongside him


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

But unfortunately I guess that's where vetos on the UN security council come in handy.

denverdoc

Reagan was also a good example of a leader who should have been impeached, but by that time he was still the babbling idiot he always was, and so no way to detect a difference, BESIDES very much believed in. Bush is alive, but again this is brain fx relative to baseline, so hard to know stupid vs dementia, or worse, both. His crimes IMO go way beyond either Reagan or Nixon, or even Clinton. There is rich international law to support such a move, and curiously the same battles he has sought relief from and pressed forward an immunity clause therefrom.

Astronuc

Senate Democrats Test Bush's Authority
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9237374
by Steve Inskeep and David Greene

Well it's about time that Congress exercised some 'checks and balances'.

We do not need, nor can we afford, a unitary executive who is motivated by self-interest and who unilaterally works against the interest of the country of which he or she is supposed to be serving.

Art

I'm curious. What happens when Bush vetos the bill? Will congress back down and present a new spending bill without the offending timetable? What happens if congress refuses to budge? Can the president exercise a line item veto? And does the president have access to emergency bridging funds?

Ivan Seeking

The talking heads are saying the the military could shuffle funds to cover things until July.

The Presidential line item veto was deemed to be unconstitutional. It would require a Constitutional Ammendment in order to make it legal.

It's a showdown at the DC Corral. Though, I tend to think this is really about making the war strictly a Republican liability. Later the dems can claim that they tried to get us out, but the Reps blocked the effort.

Gokul43201

They will be forced to back down some. It takes a 2/3 majority to override the veto, and the dems do not have that kind of support at the moment.

Ivan Seeking

...and they won't have the support, and they have known that all along.

turbo

They do not have the majority needed for an override, BUT I have heard it suggested that the Democrats in both houses should offer bills giving Bush an open-ended carte-blanche for the war, including increasing troop levels if he wishes. Then every Democrat would vote against the bill to ensure that it would not pass and so would every Republican who doesn't want that vote thrown in their fact in the next election cycle. How would it look for Bush if a super-majority of Congress voted against allowing him to exercise the same degree of authority that he has claimed until now? It's time for a serious move toward impeachment, if only to clip the wings of the next gutless chicken hawk to hold the office.

Art

I appreciate congress can't force the bill through as it stands but can they stonewall and refuse to submit any other alternative bill or is there emergency legislation that kicks in in such an event?
It just seems hard to imagine that the law would allow a situation whereby the entire US military could grind to a halt.

Ivan Seeking

The could enact a temp continuing resolution for funding, but there is no emergency funding aside from what the military can shuffle.

Astronuc

Appropriations are handled by Congress as defined in the US Constitution. It does not take into account a specific situation, such as war.

In theory, the US military would not invade a country without a declaration of war, and that is the responsibility on Congress - again from the Constitution, Section 8 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress ) - although there does seem to be some dispute on whether or not a 'declaration of war' is necessary. Unfortunately, with time and changes in the nuance of language, it seems the wording of the Constitution is now somewhat ambiguous or vague.