WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS – STUPID

[rhett o rick]

That is aimed at Arlen Specter and those in Congress that have been pussy-footing around afraid of creating a Constitutional Crisis.

“A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution…” Hello!!

How many willful violations does it take??

Abuse of signing statements

Abuse of executive privilege

Political manipulation of the Justice Dept

Preemptive invasion of a none threatening nation leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Spying on phone conversations, internet messages, homes, etc. w/o warrants or other oversight.

I could go on and on (and usually do), but if we don’t punish those guilty of assaulting our Democracy all is lost. No other business is more important. If they are not harshly punished, they will be back with a vengeance.

There is no good reason not to impeach.

The “don’t try least we fail” argument is BS. I am glad our founding fathers didn’t have that attitude.

The “Impeachment would distract us from passing important legislation” is also BS. If we don’t reestablish the Constitution and Democracy, all other legislation is moot.

I agree there is risk involved but if our elected representatives refuse to do it, it will be up to the People to do it.

Many in Congress are afraid of impeachment because of the risk to their jobs. They view their jobs as more important than democracy. They need to be re-calibrated. They represent us.

[Bucky]

1. I'll disagree with you. We have Constitutional violations going on right now.

It's only a Constitutional crisis when one of the other two branches stands up and holds them to account.

[Toots]

2. I am not even sure we still have a Constitution at all.

:shrug: But we certainly have a crisis...It is called the Bush* Cabal

[rhett o rick]

3. So at what point would you call it a CC? What action by Congress

would constitute "holds them to account"? Isn't Conyers holding them to account?

[rhett o rick]

4. So you're saying that we can completely loose the Constitution w/o ever

actually having a CC? Technically I suppose you are right. Sad isn't it.

[Tellurian]

5. "WE THE PEOPLE" WANT a Constitutional Crisis!

We need to bring the fight directly to Bush and have him declare he is our dictator. He needs to publicly declare he is the self-proclaimed dictator. Bringing the fight to him will force him to take a stand.

Thats when the fight begins..The Last Stand!

[rhett o rick]

6. Well said. The People can decide that we have a CC.

[nealmhughes]

7. A constitutional crisis is the equivalent of a voluntary test case defendent.

At times someone needs to be the brave soul who will submit to the process and put the entire diseased organ to examination.

Let the chips fall where they may: it will at least, once the dust settles, let us know how we as a nation stand, rightly or wrongly, at least the issue is settled.

RE the current dismissal of US attorneys: no one disputes that the President has the right to appoint them (with Senate confirmation) and to dismiss them at will -- even it were becasuse he no longer cares for their brand of cologne. What is not acceptable is to lie about the reason and to posit that the dismissed were "subpar" when it is clear that being far from subpar, they were not following the political game rules as dictated by Rove et al. In short, independence, something normally championed by most in a prosecutor, has been maimed.

The coverup and lies is what will tell the White House out. It is so much simpler for one story to be told, that way one never has to recall all the different versions that develop as facts unfold.

What is wrong is to pick a set of prosecutors because of particular cases they chose to pursue, i.e., go where the evidence led them, and to make complicity to crimes (Duke Cunningham) remain covert in order to preserve the mystical moral aegis of the Republic Party.

Some things are right, and some are wrong. This is time for the White House to either follow Congress's power to subponea or to deny it. Let's see where the chips then fall: is there an inherent right to "executive privledge" or does a Congressional subponea (the federal branch closest to the people) trump this?

I personally feel sorry for the prosecutors who have been tainted by the claims of Rove-cum Gonzales-et Bush regarding their performance. However, it is only symptamic of the rot at the core of an Executive that is a political tool and a Congress that has been too long complacent in order to avoid the taint of "terrorist enabler" or "hindering Mr. Bush's wartime powers."

In short: place the cards on the table, and we'll see who has the trump or high card.

[rhett o rick]

9. Well said. The President thinks he is King. It is time to get that straightened out.

It is time for a confrontation and as you put it "Let the chips fall where they may".

Sadly many in Congress value their parking spot more than democracy. I think it will come down to the People.

[rhett o rick]

8. Some in Congress seem more concerned in avoiding a CC than saving the Constitution. nm

[mmonk]

10. We have a dictatorship in that bush has assumed powers

not granted to the executive branch and the executive branch is operating outside or above American constitutional law. If not challenged and precedents resulting from this not corrected, then we aren't free in the definition ascribed as by the rights granted and assured under its protection. In no uncertain terms we as a people must not allow anyone to continue giving up these rights due to their position in government whether violating these laws and concepts or allowing them to continue being violated.

[rhett o rick]

12. Time to use our dry powder and let the chips fall where they may. nm

[Tellurian]

13. Not exactly correct..

Bush has altered the Constitution through the Patriot's Act I & 2 by stripping away the amendments containing and protecting our Civil Rights. By doing so, he has altered the balance between the 3 branches, giving the Executive branch more power over what once were legislative decisions. This dynamic already exists but has not been made common knowledge to the general public. This is the Primary reason Congress has not been able to Impeach him, because first of all, they do not have the necessary votes, nor even if they did, Bush is protected with Executive Immunity under the Federalist Constitution he has set forth with these changes.

If you want to learn more, you can read here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[mmonk]

17. I'm not one that ascribes to the notion that one branch

of government can alter the constitution to assume ultimate power over the other branches using deceit. This is also an executive branch that appears to have engaged in espionage of its own country.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. We've had a constitutional crisis since December 12, 2000

When the Supreme Court ruled the loser won.

[rhett o rick]

15. And I don't see the neocon nazi's yielding to a mere election in 2008.

Now they have established the President as King, they will not give up the throne to a Democrat.

[Marrak]

14. Preznit B*** began his day...

by taking his daily "constitution"....

<>

[unlawflcombatnt]

16. Great Picture

I think Bush did this Friday when he came to the podium after Congress passed the Iraq funding and withdrawal legislation.