Queso Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Why was Clinton impeached? Why isn't Bush impeached? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Why was Clinton impeached? Why isn't Bush impeached? Clinton was impeached, but found not guilty by the senate. In my mind, this is not true impeachment. As for Bush, name which law he's broken or what presidential requirement he's disregarded... on what grounds besides "I don't like him" he qualifies for impeachment? Now, don't get me wrong, I really don't think he is what's best for this country or this planet, but you still need more than "he's a f*&king dick" to get something done in this world. I'll propose another question, in hopes that this doesn't become another 2 post-dead thread... Why don't we recall the president, like they did in California? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobin Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 As for Bush, name which law he's broken or what presidential requirement he's disregarded... on what grounds besides "I don't like him" he qualifies for impeachment? Ill start with disregarding international law and the UN Security Council's veto of war with Iraq, and disregarding NAFTA in the softwood lumber dispute with Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Why don't we recall the president, like they did in California? Good question InfiniteNow. The only problem with a recall is that when things are very close you can get worse results than those that got GWB elected in the first place, depending on how you do the recall. I'm not quite certain how the recall is done so here's two possible ways. If 51 % of people vote for recall with 26% voting for one recall candidate and 25% voting for another you will have 49% remaining who voted for the recalled incumbent. If recall is automatic when just over 50% vote for recall candidates can this first method really be considered democratic? If another election is called for all candidates after a recall is decided on and the incumbent gets 49% of that election is he the winner or is it the candidate who received 26% of the vote as in the first method? InfiniteNow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Why was Clinton impeached? Why isn't Bush impeached? Perjury, he lied under oath. Lack of evidence of High Crimes or misdeamors...(P.S. Being a moron is not an impeachable offence) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 thanks. I was too young at the time to follow politics.So...Bush really hasn't done anything illegal yet? Surprising! Why does everyone hate him? 'Cause of the war? Personally, I'm indifferent 'cause I really don't understand any of it. Hence the thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Senators vote to impeach Bush-Europe-World-The Times of India It seems that the Bush administration has been criminal (at least in some people's eyes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 It seems that the Bush administration has been criminal (at least in some people's eyes). Yet none of these repeated impeachment advocates has ever enumerated even one actual violation of U.S. Constitution itself or the U.S. Legal Code.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Orb (et al.), This may help some: Impeachment Resources: A Look at the Impeachment Process (Resources, ABA Division for Public Education)the Constitution specifies that high government officials may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What precisely constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, however, uncertain because the courts have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other constitutional clauses. Treason and bribery are very serious offenses against the state, and most experts agree that offenses encompassed within "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similarly serious. ("Misdemeanors" is a constitutional term that does not have the current meaning of an offense less serious than a felony.) There is historical precedent dealing with impeachable conduct. For example, in 1974 the House Judiciary Committee rejected articles of impeachment against President Nixon for the secret bombings in Cambodia, which were viewed as being within executive prerogative as commander in chief, and for personal income tax irregularities, which were viewed as too personal to warrant impeachment. (The articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee related to criminal actions during the cover-up of the Watergate break-in; as noted above, Nixon resigned before the full House voted on the articles). Also, many experts agree that there are different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct. In the words of Dean John D. Feerick of Fordham University School of Law, in an article published in 1984, "Most authorities agree--and the precedents are in accord--that an impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable. Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is generally regarded as grounds for impeachment. Since impeachment is a drastic sanction, the misconduct must be substantial and serious." Please note also if Bush were impeached, Cheney would remain. 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. Constitution of the United States of America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Now I see. Gratzi. I think America needs a very dynamic leader... What do you think? It seems like we've almost evolved to the point where we don't even need a "leader"somewhere off to the right in the fourth dimensionwhere we all lead ourselves (?) Do you think this pyramidal hierarchy will ever invert?It kind of resonates with what I understand to be waveform logic. If not, how will it convert? Is it perfect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Well, "by the people for the people" comes to mind (Gettysburg Address).... I think our government (US) is set up very well. The running of it is a different story. The system of checks and balances has become corroded and is in need of a serious overhaul, imo. The executive branch is portrayed as "The President". He is mainly the figurehead for a much larger functioning body (yes I realize he is CiC and has veto power [all too aware of the latter]). But yet, where does the emphasis lie?Unfortunately, I don't think we have evolved even close to a point where we could see a 'flip of the triangle of hierarchy', Orbs. Our nature is not unlike dogs or chimps, and other pack animals. We need to lead and follow. Dominance and submission are the rules to the game. It is most sad for those that can see beyond these trivial constructions. In time...in time... Back on topic;Do I think Bush should be impeached?No!Do I agree with his policies and practices?No! I do think it is silly that Vermont made a big hoop-la about impeaching Bush. It made for a good laugh when I read the headlines and even though I still do not understand the premises for the 'call to arms' (the article I've posted mentioned misleading America into war and neglecting the UN [we could debate on this alone for days]), I can't help but applaud the intent. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 No I think it will take hundreds of years until the pyramid inverts... I was just wondering if anyone else thought that pattern was plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 I was just wondering if anyone else thought that pattern was plausible. 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 "The spiral is tightening" OM GAIA! Freezy, you are so cool. Hi 5. For sheezy. :Alien: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 "The spiral is tightening" Time is relative... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Subject to the Observer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Subject to the Observer Which is me. And you. :Alien:And everyone/everything else. :) Are the days getting shorter?Answer: What is short? Is Bush better than Clinton?Answer: ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.