Jump to content

Impeachment -- Suddenly Likely??


Boston Guy
This topic is 6066 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

It appears that there is a rule in the Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives (written by Jefferson when he was VP and still in use by the House), which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. Both the Illinois and Vermont legislatures are about to consider such resolutions.

 

If passed and transmitted to Congress, there is some question as to their effect. But Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual seems to indicate that such a transmission would "set an impeachment in motion." If so, it would be a privileged matter, coming before all other business of the House.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060422_bush_impeachment___t.htm

 

And here's the text of Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual:

 

[blockquote]

In the <<NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the

House.>> House of Representatives there are various methods of setting

an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the

responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469;

VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which

is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491,

2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the

hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-

42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III,

2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a

State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III,

2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating

committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice

President sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges

against him of possibly impeachable offenses; the Speaker and the House

took no action on the request since the matter was pending in the courts

and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice

President's term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368); see III, 2510,

wherein the Committee on the Judiciary (to which the matter had been

referred by privileged resolution) reported that a civil officer (the

Vice President) could not be impeached for acts or omissions committed

prior to his term of office; but see III, 1736, however, the Vice

President's request that the House investigate charges against his prior

offical conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on motion, to a select

committee.[/blockquote]

 

BG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the full text of the Illinois bill:

 

BG


 

 

HJ0125 LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r

 

1

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

 

 

2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of

3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal

4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of

5 a state legislature; and

 

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering

7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978

8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically

9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without

10 warrant; and

 

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized

12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,

13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States

14 Constitution; and

 

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American

16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war

17 without charge or trial; and

 

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration

19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a

20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the

21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the

22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and

23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

 

24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified

25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an

26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential

27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to

28 investigate the matter; and

 

29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined

 

 

 

 

HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r

 

1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it

 

2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE

4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the

5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.

6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President

7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office

8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United

9 States; and be it further

 

10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the

11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and

12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sounds all fine and dandy and I'd be all for it but with DC in the control of the Republicans I don't see this going too far. But lets keep our fingers crossed that good things can come out of DC.

 

Hugs,

Greg

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

Palm Springs April 28th and 29th.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/NobodyKnowsMe/sinz.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S.F. supervisors ask lawmakers to impeach Bush

- Edward Epstein, Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writers

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

 

San Francisco's supervisors jumped into national politics Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the city's Democratic congressional delegation to seek the impeachment of President Bush for failing to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and engaging in other activities the board sees as transgressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LA Times editorial today, coinciding with Bush's Palm Springs visit*, called for Bush to dump Rumsfeld and Cheney. The tide does seem to be turning.

 

*Bush isn't holding any public appearances. Afraid some Chinese woman might show up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

Dem asks Legislature to push Bush impeachment

 

April 24, 2006

 

BY TRACY SWARTZ Sun-Times Springfield Bureau

 

 

SPRINGFIELD -- Leave it to the Democratic-controlled state Legislature to find an obscure way to attempt to oust President Bush.

 

State Rep. Karen Yarbrough (D-Maywood) has sponsored a resolution calling on the General Assembly to submit charges to the U.S. House so its lawmakers could begin impeachment proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

This is excellent news for Republicans. It means that during the fall elections, the big question will not be whether Bush has done a good job, but whether he should be impeached and Cheney given the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush rating at 24% in CT

 

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's job approval rating in Connecticut plunged to a record-low 24 percent this month, one of the most dismal showings in the nation - and a number the president could find difficult to reverse anytime soon.

 

"I think he's in real trouble, at least until the November election," said Samuel Best, director of the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis.

 

{snip}

 

"Those events cast doubt on the president's ability to govern," Best said. Nationwide, pollsters saw the same trend.

 

"The number has slipped 6 or 7 points in the last six to eight weeks," said G. Terry Madonna, director of Pennsylvania's Keystone Poll, talking about trends in that bellwether state. "I don't think there's any doubt that Iraq is the main reason, but a lot of other things keep happening."

 

The full story:

 

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-bushpoll0425.artapr25,0,2212469.story?coll=hc-headlines-nationworld

 

BG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

Oh, I don't care if it happens, really, and I think you're right: it won't happen with this Congress. We'll be rid of the guy soon enough.

 

But I think it would be fascinating watching the House deal with articles sent from one or more states. Watching the Republicans try to explain exactly why they don't want to follow what is evidently a constitutional procedure and have even a cursory investigation would be quite interesting indeed.

 

BG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, but those who say impeachment is so very unlikely should remember the context of Clinton's impeachment: popularity high, enormous budget surplus, peaceful time, competent administration, booming economy, etc. This "president" is mired in bad news: incompetence, leaks, scandal, record low approval rating at home and abroad, etc. RepubliSCUMs running for reelection are running as far away from him as possible. America IS waking up!

 

And then there are these interesting facts from Bob Herbert in today’s NY Times: big-name conservatives have turned against Bush, even talk-show radio callers are outraged, the libertarian Cato Institute is about to release a study accusing Bush of repeated attempts to bypass the limits on federal power set by the Constitution, and the distinguished historian Sean Wilentz is taking “a serious look at the possibility that Mr. Bush may be the worst president in the nation’s history.” Can there really be any doubt on that question??

 

Mr. Bush entered office scorning preservation and laughing at conservation efforts. Where are we today? Mr. Bush entered office scorning involvement in foreign conflicts. Where are we today? People are outraged about oil prices. Who is the Secretary of State who used to be a director at Chevron and has an oil tanker named after herself? Condo-SLEEEEAZE-a, of course. One of these days, I suspect, the slick is going to stick, and Bush and Co.—his cronies and their whole sleazy show—are going to sink like the rat-infested, scum-encrusted, rusted-out old tanker this administration has been from Day One.

 

According to Herbert, the “sins of the Bush administration are so extensive and so egregious, they could never be adequately addressed in a newspaper column.” How true that is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

>Don't bet the farm on impeachment. It ain't gonna happen.

 

Even if the procedure were to be started, is there really enough time left to accomplish this before his natural term runs out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

Probably not. And with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress an impeachment effort won't go anywhere. But if it's possible to get one started it can perhaps grab public attention and focus people on the egregiousness of Bush and his criminal co-conspirators. If people come to understand the enormity of what this gang has done, it would be a useful educational exercise. And maybe, just maybe, they'll think a bit more carefully the next time they vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

It is dishonest to blame Bush for oil prices. It is a matter of supply and demand. China and India and other countries have developed a huge thirst for oil. Bush did not cause that. He has tried to open the Alaska waste land to increase the US domestic supply, but has been blocked by the Democrats. The liberal fantasy is that if Bush had wanted to he could have snapped his fingers and instantly alternative sources would have come into being, and we would not need oil today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: And now California & Illinois!

 

IT IS DISHONEST NOT to blame the Bush administration, at least in part, for oil prices. They were the ones who entered office 6 years ago laughing and scoffing at conservation. They've been the ones to scuttle efforts to develop alternative energy supplies. They've resisted and taken apart laws that encouraged automobile companies to develop better fuel milage. They preach coal and oil when EVERYONE knows these are finite resources and dirty polluters. And their supporters live in the suburbs and drive gas-guzzling SUVs. How short is your memory, Merlin?

 

Now the Bushies have changed their tune. They and their more-than-shortsighted supporters have had to face a hard truth. I suspect there are a few more hard truths coming down the line for the arrogant, ignorant, and pathetic Bushies--like the very real consequences of global warming--another hard reality they like to deny, evade, and lie about.

 

The problem with oil has been on the horizon for DECADES. Clinton/Gore were constantly talking about it and grasping for solutions and writing books about it. The strategy of this Bushy group of morons has always been to poke their heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away while lining their pockets with the profits of the companies everyone knows them to be in bed with. Drilling in Alaska--puleaze--there isn't enough oil there to run the country for a month.

 

Welcome to the very real consequences of the Bush administration's arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...