How about #s 14, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 34?
Those seem to me to all be pretty blatant violations of actual standing law.
What articles are YOU reading?
And this whole must violate a "statute" thing?
Thats actually mostly incorrect.
The president can be impeached ONLY for
a. Treason
b. Bribery
c. HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANOURS
So the only actual STATUTES he could be impeached for would be those somehow pertaining to #C.
THUS,
What i am more concerned with is HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS on which you should read up a little.
Here, from our favorite:
HE COULD EVEN BE IMPEACHED FOR BEING A CHRONIC DRUNK,
just to show you how far you could take this.
(i'm not accusing him of that, i'm showing you what the scope of the law provides here!)
FURTHER, WE COULD IMPEACH DICK CHENEY AND ANY OTHER ONE OF THOSE MOTHER FUCKERS WE CHOSE TO, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT!!!! READ THE CONSTITUTION!
Im sorta familiar with that Constitution thing. It's taught in LAW SCHOOL. But you go with Wikipedia. Im comfortable with my interpretation.
I don't know what's sadder, the fact that people would bother to google to get that link, or the fact that i have seen that link before and can remember who posted it.
it looks far more peaceful then this place. maybe ill give it a whirl.
Meh. It can be as peaceful or as unpeaceful as you like here. Just start up 25 different accounts and post under which personality best suits you at the time. Works for some.
Im sorta familiar with that Constitution thing. It's taught in LAW SCHOOL. But you go with Wikipedia. Im comfortable with my interpretation.
Dude seriously, no disrespect to your schooling, but if you can't interpret "high crimes & misdeameanors" correctly with a little bit of sifting around, you should really crack the books back open, or just give it up.
According to you, the only thing the president can be impeached for is an "actual violation of statute", which is SO FAR OFF THE MARK IT IS NOT EVEN FUNNY!
In fact, baring those statutes that would some how be interpreted as "high crimes or misdeameanors", the president can NOT be impeached simply for violations of statutory law. Go look at your constitution again. Tell me where you see dick about "statutes".
Now go investigate what the fuck "high crimes and misdeameanors" means and get back to me.
You also said " Further even if you succeed you get President Cheney. "
which leads me to believe you didn't even grasp that impeachment applies to ANY civil officer of the United States, EXPLICITLY INCLUDING the Vice President.
And if you don't think Bush (AND Cheney) could be brought up on more than a half dozen interpretive charges of "high crimes", you are being purposely deceptive. Go back and look at the easy little read I cut out from wiki for you. I even bolded the offenses that are comparable to what Bush and Co. have done. Theres plenty of "high crime" to go 'round.
You don't have to go to law school to have half a brain,
sorry.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't believe he's done anything illegal (and neither do most people or this would have happened already).
Speaking of being accountable - have you turned yourself in for stealing government property yet?
Nope, and no one has come up and thanked me yet for keeping their kid from enlisting and perhaps saving their life. But I viewed the act as more of a thankless but well worth it type deal anyways.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Members of the congress are not impeachable per the constitution. At least, that is, per congressional interpretation of the impeachement provision of the constitution, specificaly "what is the definition of 'civil officer', and who does it include?"
Sorry.
:(
I would like to know if Supreme Court Justices are available for impeachment.
They may serve life time terms, but it looks to me like they would fall under the "civil officers" descriptor.
Thats all subject to interpretation though, since it's not explicit.
:sigh:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Meh. It can be as peaceful or as unpeaceful as you like here. Just start up 25 different accounts and post under which personality best suits you at the time. Works for some.
It's pathetic really. Freaks.
?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Comments
I'll go with the second one.
It's pathetic really. Freaks.
It's like telling the family of a murder victim "Why prosectute, your family member is already dead."
Dude seriously, no disrespect to your schooling, but if you can't interpret "high crimes & misdeameanors" correctly with a little bit of sifting around, you should really crack the books back open, or just give it up.
According to you, the only thing the president can be impeached for is an "actual violation of statute", which is SO FAR OFF THE MARK IT IS NOT EVEN FUNNY!
In fact, baring those statutes that would some how be interpreted as "high crimes or misdeameanors", the president can NOT be impeached simply for violations of statutory law. Go look at your constitution again. Tell me where you see dick about "statutes".
Now go investigate what the fuck "high crimes and misdeameanors" means and get back to me.
You also said " Further even if you succeed you get President Cheney. "
which leads me to believe you didn't even grasp that impeachment applies to ANY civil officer of the United States, EXPLICITLY INCLUDING the Vice President.
And if you don't think Bush (AND Cheney) could be brought up on more than a half dozen interpretive charges of "high crimes", you are being purposely deceptive. Go back and look at the easy little read I cut out from wiki for you. I even bolded the offenses that are comparable to what Bush and Co. have done. Theres plenty of "high crime" to go 'round.
You don't have to go to law school to have half a brain,
sorry.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Nope, and no one has come up and thanked me yet for keeping their kid from enlisting and perhaps saving their life. But I viewed the act as more of a thankless but well worth it type deal anyways.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree. impeach Pelosi.
Not exactly. Impeachment basically doesn't mean anything. We saw that with Clinton.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Members of the congress are not impeachable per the constitution. At least, that is, per congressional interpretation of the impeachement provision of the constitution, specificaly "what is the definition of 'civil officer', and who does it include?"
Sorry.
:(
I would like to know if Supreme Court Justices are available for impeachment.
They may serve life time terms, but it looks to me like they would fall under the "civil officers" descriptor.
Thats all subject to interpretation though, since it's not explicit.
:sigh:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Love ya Punkinfur