News Vermont senators adopt resolution to impeach Bush, Cheney

[Ivan Seeking]

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont senators voted today to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions have raised "serious questions of constitutionality."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust." [continued]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4733426.html

Could this finally be the beginning?

I always did like Vermont.

 

[Cyrus]

Keeping my fingers crossed!

 

[mathwonk]

go brattleboro!

 

[russ_watters]

The Senate of Vermont? What a joke!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Senate of Vermont? What a joke!

Inspired response!

 

[russ_watters]

Inspiring OP!

Well seriously then Ivan - you tell me how this has anything to do with the beginning of anything? You posted the thread. Make an argument! What use does it have? It is a non-binding resolution in a state legislature. Just a nothing statement by politicos being politicos.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Inspiring OP!

Well seriously then Ivan - you tell me how this has anything to do with the beginning of anything? You posted the thread. Make an argument! What use does it have? It is a non-binding resolution in a state legislature. Just a nothing statement by politicos being politicos.

I completely agree. Please for me and the rest of us tell us exactly what Bush has done that is not part of the powers in titled to the executive branch.

Where as we have the armchair quarterbacks in congress who need to grow a spine and use there actual powers of the purse and cut off the funding for the war if they think it has gone on long enough. The "do nothing" congress needs to stop trying to take over the powers of the executive branch with there non binding resolutions and time tables for withdrawal and stick to there powers. We have one commander in chief not 535. This political garbage is really destroying this country.

 

[GTdan]

I Agree +1.

As far as constitutionality and legality, Bush has used all that he is allowed to use. They might have abuse of public trust going for them but that's not an impeachable "offense." What politician hasn't abused public trust?

 

[Rothiemurchus]

If they're going to impeach Bush and Cheney then they need to make sure it's for lying to Congress about the threat Saddam's regime posed in the middle east.If they're pissed off about the outcome of the invasion/war then they should n't use that as an excuse to impeach Bush and Cheney - they only seemed to get keen on impeachment when the war looked as though it was going wrong from the point of view of the USA and Bush and Cheney looked like an embarassment/liability to the US!

 

[denverdoc]

theres any number of articles they could lay at their feet. Certainly more than a favor from an intern, and subsequent obstruction, by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Taken in its totality I would call it despotism.

 

[mathwonk]

exactly when did bush and cheney begin to look like an embarrassment to you? for me it was before they were elected.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I completely agree. Please for me and the rest of us tell us exactly what Bush has done that is not part of the powers in titled to the executive branch.

My position is that he clearly has abused power and this can now be shown by a Congress that is willing to perform its job of oversight and issue subpoenas. And sure enough, as soon as they did, we have a slew of missing White House emails that are required by law to be preserved. We will see where that one leads. As for justifying the actions of Vermont, their motives are discussed in the link. A good number of cities have called for impeachment and now we see it at the state level. I find this to be very encouraging.

I can name a couple of dozen reasons why I think he should be impeached, but what legal grounds are best to pursue is not yet clear. If nothing else, making a false official statement is punishable by five years in prison, so technically this alone might be an easy path to pursue - ie the public trust.

Technically he has shown himself to be incapable of performing his sworn duties [also a reason for removal from office] since he clearly doesn't yet know what they are. Contrary to his popular claim of protecting the American people as a highest priorety, in fact his highest priorety is to protect the Constitution. Show me where "protecting the American people" is his primary responsibility, anywhere in the Constitution. I believe that a clear pattern of abuse of power makes the case for removal from office due to a failure to perform his primary duties. But without a super-majority in the Senate, the Dems know that they will need a legal smoking gun. I also believe that Pelosi's promise was made knowing full well that new evidence would allow her to support impeachment without justification, in spite of her promise to the contrary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

exactly when did bush and cheney begin to look like an embarrassment to you? for me it was before they were elected.

I awoke in a hotel room in Georgia to the news that Bush, not Gore, had won. I actually thought that I was having a nightmare at first. Then I realized that I had left the TV on and this was actually happening. And indeed it has been a nightmare almost ever since, but much worse than I imagined.

And just for the record, I didn't care much for Gore either, but given the choice...

 

[Cyrus]

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“ The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A high misdemeanor is left up to interpretation by the congress. Based on his piss-poor job performance, I am sure they can find a reason to Impeach Bush.

Not controlling his people in the leaking of a CIA agent, hows that for one. Goes with misdemeanor and treason. You don't have to prove it was Bush himself who said it, just that it was his incompetance that lead to the event.

Better yet, dancing around the Geneva convention for terrorists because they are not a country army.

How about severe misinformation to the public and congressmen leading up to the events of a war of disasterous proportions in all of US history?

If they really want to, they can kick his ass out of office. When you are THAT incompetent the people have every right to boot you.

 

[Cyrus]

My position is that he clearly has abused power and this can now be shown by a Congress that is willing to perform its job of oversight and issue subpoenas. And sure enough, as soon as they did, we have a slew of missing White House emails that are required by law to be preserved. We will see where that one leads. As for justifying the actions of Vermont, their motives are discussed in the link. A good number of cities have called for impeachment and now we see it at the state level. I find this to be very encouraging.

I can name a couple of dozen reasons why I think he should be impeached, but what legal grounds are best to pursue is not yet clear. If nothing else, making a false official statement is punishable by five years in prison, so technically this alone might be an easy path to pursue - ie the public trust.

Technically he has shown himself to be incapable of performing his sworn duties [also a reason for removal from office] since he clearly doesn't yet know what they are. Contrary to his popular claim of protecting the American people as a highest priorety, in fact his highest priorety is to protect the Constitution. Show me where "protecting the American people" is his primary responsibility, anywhere in the Constitution. I believe that a clear pattern of abuse of power makes the case for removal from office due to a failure to perform his primary duties. But without a super-majority in the Senate, the Dems know that they will need a legal smoking gun. I also believe that Pelosi's promise was made knowing full well that new evidence would allow her to support impeachment without justification, in spite of her promise to the contrary.

<Our side of the floor stands up and claps> Here here!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Technically, this is the law in its entirety

Sec. 1—The President Cls. 7–8—Compensation, Oath

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office,
or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the
Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve
on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for
the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
the President and Vice President declaring what Officer shall
then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly
until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con005.pdf

IMO, Bush and Cheney have shown abundantly that they are incapable of performing their duty to protect the Constitution.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"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."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

 

[Cyrus]

One things for sure, when his presidency is over, he isn't going to be welcomed anywhere in the world, and I am glad for that.

He can spend the rest of his days alone in his ranch, because apparently Laura and him don't get along anymore either.

 

[Astronuc]

Would Bush's performance qualify as dereliction of duty, and is that a valid reason to impeach?

His signing statements are troublesome, since he uses that rather than a veto, and the legality of some may be in question.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I can name a couple of dozen reasons why I think he should be impeached, but what legal grounds are best to pursue is not yet clear. If nothing else, making a false official statement is punishable by five years in prison, so technically this alone might be an easy path to pursue - ie the public trust.

Technically he has shown himself to be incapable of performing his sworn duties [also a reason for removal from office] since he clearly doesn't yet know what they are. Contrary to his popular claim of protecting the American people as a highest priorety, in fact his highest priorety is to protect the Constitution. Show me where "protecting the American people" is his primary responsibility, anywhere in the Constitution. I believe that a clear pattern of abuse of power makes the case for removal from office due to a failure to perform his primary duties. But without a super-majority in the Senate, the Dems know that they will need a legal smoking gun. I also believe that Pelosi's promise was made knowing full well that new evidence would allow her to support impeachment without justification, in spite of her promise to the contrary.

What false statements would those be? If they are the whole lied to congress about WMD in Iraq then I'm going have to saw try again as I pointed out https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165565&page=3" 36th post.

As for not knowing his sworn duty as president, without the American people there is no need for the Constitution of the United states. Therefore when he says protecting the people of the united stated I say there one in the same. Also if we are going to go down this road then Pelosi need to be up there to for her attempt at being Sec. State and commander in chief, clearly not in the powers of congress.

Not controlling his people in the leaking of a CIA agent, hows that for one. Goes with misdemeanor and treason. You don't have to prove it was Bush himself who said it, just that it was his incompetance that lead to the event.

Better yet, dancing around the Geneva convention for terrorists because they are not a country army.

If you think that you can have 100% control over the thoughts and minds of someone under you then either you are being foolish or wanting to live in some Orwellian world. On that I'll take a pass. This would be like you getting fired or arrested because your kid said something that was despairing to the company you work for, or doing something illegal. Hardly seems fair to me.

As for the Geneva convention it dose NOT cover terrorist. If you can prove me wrong out of the http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm", then by all means please do. The fact that they are still alive in GB Cuba with shelter, food, water and there holy books is infinitely more then they deserve. If you remember anything from this post remember this. All of the Islamic fascist want the entire world to be under there sick and twisted form of Islam, and if you don't believe in there twisted words then you must be killed.

IMO, Bush and Cheney have shown abundantly that they are incapable of performing their duty to protect the Constitution.

Well I'm going to have to Disagree with you. This is America and we are free to disagree.

As for all of you that label me a right wing Bush supporting nut job, well I'm not there are several things that I think he has handled poorly. Should he be impeached for it, no.

 

[Cyrus]

Hardly seems fair to me.

<Shrug> I don't care if its not fair, I just wanted a reason to impeach him. Do you really think I *care* if its fair?

All of the Islamic fascist want the entire world to be under there sick and twisted form of Islam, and if you don't believe in there twisted words then you must be killed.

<Rolls my eyes>, ok thanks. Because we all know the terrorists were trying to take over the world before 9-11...righttt. I smell a load of crap.

PS, did I said dancing around the Geneva convention.

The fact that they are still alive in GB Cuba with shelter, food, water and there holy books is infinitely more then they deserve.

<Shrug> Again, what they deserve is irrelevant. Oh, how about a trial. I think they deserve that. <rolles my eyes some more>

You know, I am from the middle east, I don't need to hear this "they want to make the world Islamic" nonsense. It's a bunch of BS, ask anyone from the ME and they will tell you the same. You're just buying into the crap portrayed in the media.

Now, I am not trying to be rude to you, so don't take it that way. But I just won't hear that argument anymore, because it does not hold water.

 

[Cyrus]

http://time-blog.com/theag/2007/03/jews_and_blacks_for_gays.html

Wow, first convicton since the start of the war and it only took what, 4 years?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

PS, did I said dancing around the Geneva convention.



<Shrug> Again, what they deserve is irrelevant. Oh, how about a trial. I think they deserve that. <rolles my eyes some more>

You know, I am from the middle east, I don't need to hear this "they want to make the world Islamic" nonsense. It's a bunch of BS, ask anyone from the ME and they will tell you the same. You're just buying into the crap portrayed in the media.

Now, I am not trying to be rude to you, so don't take it that way. But I just won't hear that argument anymore, because it does not hold water.

As I said there not covered by the Geneva convention there for bring it into the argument is moot. It would be like one government trying to tax an individual that has never lived or worked in there country.

As for a trial they can get one in front of a military tribunal. They have no right to a civil court in the US as they are not US citizens.

That is what I get from listening to the rhetoric from these Islamic extremists. Note I said extremists, not every one who follows the teaching of Islam. For the sake of enlightenment what do you take from statements of the terrorist in the ME and abroad to be there goals?

 

[Cyrus]

Honestly, I take their statements as saying "Get the hell out of our land!"

They know the history of their region. They know the fact that the CIA backed many, many, many dictators there. They know that when we come to "Liberate" Iraq and Afganistan, that its a bunch of crap. They have heard that excuse, over and over and over again.

Do you *really* think they want to take over the world? I don't buy that for one minute. Look, you don't see them attacking Africa, or Australia, or South America, do you?

Who do they attack? The US, becasue of what I said above. Russia, because they bother Chechnia. Europe because they supported the US in invading the ME.

But what about 30 years ago? Were terrorists bothering Europe all that much like they do today? Not to my knowledge.

When was the last time the terrorists went to their near neighboors in China?

Now, the leads of these terrorists movements are not Just about what they precieve to be freedom fighting. They are just as full of crap as anyone else. They want the power of being a leader with a militia that comes with it. Then they go too far and become sorry look at the comments made by Nasrallah of Lebanon (Hezbolla Leader).

If someone had said July 11 that there was "a one percent possibility" Israel's military response would be as extensive as it turned out to be, "I would say no, I would not have entered this for many reasons -- military, social, political, economic," said Nasrallah, speaking in Arabic.

But I wont buy into that "they want to take over the world" hype for one minute.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really shouldn't have started another thread about impeachment so I'm going to close this. Please continue in the other thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165565

I could merge them but this would probably be confusing to read. Sorry about that. I guess the headline got me all worked up.