"I'll wait until you kill me, THEN I'll defend myself" this is how I view anti-impeachment arguments

[Lerkfish]

This occurred to me in another thread, when someone said if they suspend elections, then they'd be up in arms.

Think about this for a moment: if what we're waiting for is something that reprehensible, that will also be something so bad that recovery will be implausible.
The time to act is NOW. The crimes have already been committed. Waiting for them to commit worse crimes before we impeach them is a doomed to fail strategy.
The next time they commit a crime may be the one last time to stop them. In fact, the chance to stop them may have been several crimes ago.

[MissWaverly]

1. You are right, didn't Tommy Franks say with one more

attack on US soil that you could tear up the constitution. Many things have been done since 9-11 that are against everything
in the consitution. Bush sees no limits on his power, impeachment is the only answer now.

[redacted]

14. Yes and everybody back then when his article ran wondered what he knew.

Why didn't Tommy speak up? If you work for the U.S. Government and you know that acts will take place that attack our Constitution, isn't that a form of treason? "Mispersion," or something like that?

And couldn't the same thing be said now of this Massachusetts congressman John Olver, who says there won't be 2008 elections and martial law is on the way? What does HE know that he's not telling us about?

[MissWaverly]

15. yes, and what about the secret plan for gov. operations

after a terrorist attack that dems are not privy to?

[redacted]

18. Right, you are talking about the plan that they blocked Rep. Fazio from seeing?

Now, why would they do that? I don't understand why our leadership isn't SCREAMING AT THE TOPS OF THEIR LUNGS about that!

[MissWaverly]

46. Yes, you got it , Peter A. DeFazio is on Homeland Security

Now why would a democratic congressman on the House Homeland Security Committee need to review a plan for follow-up to
a terrorist attack. I don't really see why, FEMA did so well with their plan for New Orleans, the next crisis should be
a breeze, oh, by the way, what exactly is the plan for Iraq????

[AndyTiedye]

19. Yes, He Did Say That

And martial law would trump even impeachment.

[MissWaverly]

47. Yes, indeed, and there would be no more elections

suspended due to Terror Alert and no more democracy.

[pinto]

2. We Dems are dismantling the (R) junta piecemeal, will win the White House in '08,

and continue with our actions to end the occupation of Iraq.

The sky is not falling. Hang in there.

:kick:

(ed for spell)

[AndyTiedye]

21. The Sky Isn't Falling… YET

not until September. They introduce "new products" in September.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. 88... we also had the WH sown up

so we thought.

You do know what happened back then right?

[Vincardog]

3. Weak on impeachment = weak on defending America.

[Rick Myers]

5. Correct!

The oath I took said 'all enemies, foreign and domestic...'

[pinto]

7. I don't get the blanket analogy.

:shrug:

[redacted]

16. The Constitution REQUIRES impeachment. It is not a choice. Failing to impeach is

a failure to uphold and defend the constitution. That is not a shot that Nancy Pelosi or anybody has the power to call. Let me give you an MP3 to play with Constitutional Law Professor and arch-Conservative Bruce Fein, who goes into this point in great detail:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/PORTLAND-OR/KPOJ-AM/hour1_7-18-07.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PORTLAND-OR&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=674&STATION_ID=KPOJ-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=AM620_KPOJ&PCAST_CAT=News_%26_Politics&PCAST_TITLE=Thom_Hartmann_Nationwide

[pinto]

24. It doesn't require impeachment, imo. If you're alluding to the "shall" in the

specific article, you might be missing the context of when this was written. I don't read it as 'required'. I think they would have said 'must' or some other definite adjective if the intent was that the House *must* impeach when the Executive is suspected of usurping its Constitutional limits. 'Shall' here, in context, I read as 'may', or 'is able to'.

No biggie, in the big picture. Impeachment remains an option.

I see your point, but I don't buy this linguistic take.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. The "shall" refers to the punishment applied

after conviction occurs.

"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

Nowhere does the constitution require impeachment. It is entirely optional.

[pinto]

27. Thanks for the follow up. I was referring to Article II, Section 4:

"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."

(aside) A scan of the Constitution finds numerous uses of the word 'shall'. It was common, in context at the time.

The meme that the word in one clause requires impeachment rankles me. Not because I don't favor it at this time, but that it is being held as a requirement of Congressional oversight.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

29. ah, OK!

Different section, but the meaning is the same. Upon conviction, they shall be removed from office.

Not, they shall be convicted.

:hi;

[pinto]

28. And, I agree. It's an option, not required.

[redacted]

33. Monkey: Go to law school, pass the bar, call Professor Fein, and then talk with me about it.

If anybody could just "read" the Constitution, and naturally draw accurate conclusions about its interpretation like you think you can do, then every constitutional law professor in the country would be out of a job.

Educate yourself a little. I've posted almost 2 hours worth of audio and video resources in this thread. Impeachment is required by the Constitution.

[Richardo]

36. Two hours? You can't get your point across in less than two hours?

You must be kidding. On edit: I see that it's not even YOUR point. You just refer us to some OTHER person's point.

Read the sections of the Constitution that Monkey Funk and pinto posted and show us where it says impeachment is required.

Here's a hint: Nowhere.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. so just post me the part of the constitution

that requires impeachment.

[redacted]

31. You've got a constitutional scholar disagreeing with you. It ain't about "linguistics."

The Constitution requires impeachment. Like I said, play the MP3 and you'll see what I mean. Or if you'd like, I can give you the video of Bill Moyer's special report with the same Bruce Fein, if you'd prefer.

[onenote]

32. If Fein is so certain, why doesn't he (or someone else) bring a lawsuit

alleging a violation of the constitution and asking the courts to order Congress to impeach --

See just writing it out makes it sound ridiculous...

[redacted]

34. Prove to me you know and actually understand Fein's analysis and we'll talk.

The arguments people on DU come up with in the hope that they don't need to learn anything new is truly amazing.

BTW, Fein is an arch-conservative Republican. You also need to know a little bit about who you're attacking first if you want to avoid looking foolish later.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Can you please

just quote Fein's argument that impeachment is a constitutional obligation? I watched the Moyers show and didn't get that from it.

[onenote]

40. You certainly make a lot of assumptions -- unfounded ones at that

You assume I'm not familiar with Bruce Fein. I assure you I'm more familiar with him than you are having dealt with him frequently during his tenure as General Counsel of the FCC between 1983 and 1985.

And you assume that I don't know and understand Fein's analysis. Well, again, I think I do know it and understand it. He argues, and I don't disagree, that chimpy and cheney's actions warrant impeachment under the constitution -- that indeed, the impeachment clause was included to deal with such offenses. But that is not the same as arguing -- I didn't hear Fein claim or support the claim that the constitution "mandates" impeachment proceedings.

I might turn the question back to you: Prove to me you know and actually understand Fein's analysis. Show me how this supposed constitutional mandate is supposed to be enforced. If there is a constitutional obligation for congress to act, do you believe that the judiciary can force them to? Can the courts force members of congress to vote a certain way in order to carry out this "mandated" obligation? Is that Fein's position?

Finally, in terms of looking foolish by not knowing who I'm attacking, I suppose you knew that Fein was one of the principal authors of the FCC decision repealing, on asserted constitutional grounds, the Fairness Doctrine in 1985. Do you embrace his reasoning on that decision or is it just possible that Fein's constitutional expertise is not infallible.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. I've seen it

and I honestly didn't see where he said it was a constitutional requirement.

He said it was a moral necessity, a political necessity, but not a constitutional requirement. But I might've missed it, so find me the quote.

Then I will judge the quote on its own, keeping in mind he's a cock-sniffing federalist society wingnut.

[seemslikeadream]

4. It can't happen here

[Mme. Defarge]

6. This extreme underreaction kinda reminds me of the time

the sawdust furnace in my husband's parents' home caught on fire and my husband sauntered over to Abbey Rent's and stood in line to rent a fire extinguisher while his genius IQ brother stayed behind and poured a stream of hot water on the flames.

Why do our Democratic congressmen/women insist their only course of action is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as it were?

[MissWaverly]

8. Yes, and doesn't it occur to them, there were 2 stolen elections

how can they be so blind as to keep pretending that it's business as usual while America is being battered by two leaders who
care only about their own personal agendas and nothing about the Constitution, common good or the rule of law.

[Mme. Defarge]

9. Obviously

they know there's some kind of a problem with our election processes, but they're deferring a remedy until 2010. Oh well -- just another lifeboat they have allowed to be dismantled. My only hope at this point is that at the last minute the Dems will pull a rabbit out of a hat and I will have to eat my words, hat, etc.

[redacted]

10. Yes--Extraordinary, extreme Inaction!

What other lifeboats are they going to crush while our Democratic leadership sits idle?

[MissWaverly]

11. They are counting on us to do the dirty work

and push these outlaws out, but we have to have accountability or this will never stop and we will not have a functioning democracy
and putting a smiley face on it becuz he's the son of a president is not going to make things better.

[redacted]

12. MissWaverly, what sort of dirty work do you think they are counting on us to do?

[MissWaverly]

13. cleaning up the augean stables that is this administration

and congress by giving the bums the heave ho! And we will, but they are our leaders and have a duty to clean the stables
as well.

[rufus dog]

17. Agree with you 100%

Too close to an election my arse, it is about preserving Democracy in the U.S. They need to be shut down and with all possible legal force, no deals to retire, etc.

[creeksneakers2]

20. I think we still have some time to work with

before there is martial law and dictatorship.

[AndyTiedye]

22. How Much Time? A Couple of Months?

[creeksneakers2]

26. At least n/t

[checks-n-balances]

38. nope, I read somewhere that in 30 days the executive order becomes law

There's no time to waste! To do any less is to be irresponsible enough to usher in a full dictatorship with no turning back.

Some of you just don't GET IT!!

[Land Shark]

23. Another new ground for impeachment here: elections ALREADY suspended (in a real sense)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3393943

[ripple]

30. I would love to see Bush impeached, but I've yet to see

a viable plan for it, even among those championing it. Where are the votes? My impression is that the leaders in congress don't want to waste enormous amounts of time on something that isn't going to happen, anyway. It it truly is an impossible scenario, I support that decision.

[ProudDad]

43. The votes come just as they did in 1973-4

They come when the facts of the crimes are publicly aired and become unavoidable...

Once the process kicks into high gear, the votes will come just as they did then, forcing nixon to face his inevitable demise and quit.

[PBass]

41. Opponents of impeachment always have lame, crass, spineless rationale.

"Well, it might look bad."

"We don't have a lot of time."

"We have to concentrate on other stuff."

"There's an election just 16 months away. That will change things enough for me."

"It might look bad to some voters, and maybe a Democrat could lose their job."

"We don't have the votes in the Senate to actually remove anybody."

Big "f'ng" Deal!!!!

What about protecting the Constitution?

What about holding the President accountable for breaking the law?

What about enforcing Congress' oversight role?

What about deterring future presidents from acting like Bush?

[miceelf]

42. But, PBass

All of your statements about the good things about impeachment will only happen if impeachment is successful. If it fails (which it will certainly do, given how far Senate Repubs are inside Bush's colon), it will simply do the opposite- it will weaken congress's oversight role, do nothing to deter future presidents, not hold Bush accountable, and actively threaten the constitution, by having a legal finding that Bush did not break the law.

Geez, the notion that people would want to consider the actual consequence of their actions is "spineless"? All-righty, then!

[ProudDad]

44. Nixon wasn't even "Impeached"

it was highly successful, for a while until the Dems became so complacent and corrupted that they were easy pickins'.

Don't underestimate the power of the turning worm.


In addition, Impeachment is a POLITICAL remedy to a Constitutional Crisis. Our representatives swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not to cover their asses in the next election or blindlessly obey their timid "leadership".

[miceelf]

45. ProudDad

yes, the threat of the Nixon impeachment was highly successful. BECAUSE if there had been a vote, he would have been impeached. And THAT was because the people pushing impeachment were members of his own party.

So, please, give me the list of 18 Republican senators who you think are going to vote for impeachment. I'm all ears.

[ProudDad]

48. Ok, here's a complete list of the potential

votes for removal:

1 Robert Byrd (D-WV) January 3, 1959
2 Ted Kennedy (D-MA) November 7, 1962
3 Daniel Inouye (D-HI) January 3, 1963
4 Ted Stevens (R-AK) December 24, 1968
5 Pete Domenici (R-NM) January 3, 1973 New Mexico 37th Population (1970)
6 Joe Biden (D-DE) January 3, 1973 Delaware 46th Population (1970)
7 Patrick Leahy (D-VT) January 3, 1975
8 Richard Lugar (R-IN) January 4, 1977 Indiana 11th Population (1970)
9 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Utah 36th Population (1970)
10 Max Baucus (D-MT) December 15, 1978
11 Thad Cochran (R-MS) December 27, 1978
12 John Warner (R-VA) January 2, 1979
13 Carl Levin (D-MI) January 3, 1979
14 Chris Dodd (D-CT) January 3, 1981 Former Rep (6 years) - Connecticut 24th Population (1970)
15 Chuck Grassley (R-IA) January 3, 1981 Former Rep (6 years) - Iowa 25th Population (1970)
16 Arlen Specter (R-PA)
17 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) January 3, 1983
18 John Kerry (D-MA) January 2, 1985
19 Tom Harkin (D-IA) January 3, 1985 Former Rep
20 Mitch McConnell (R-KY) January 3, 1985
21 Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) January 15, 1985
22 Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) January 6, 1987 Former Rep (10 years)
23 Richard Shelby (R-AL) January 6, 1987 Former Rep (8 years)
24 John McCain (R-AZ) Former Rep (4 years) - Arizona 29th Population (1980)
25 Harry Reid (D-NV) January 6, 1987 Former Rep (4 years) - Nevada 43rd Population (1980)
26 Kit Bond (R-MO) January 6, 1987 Former Governor
27 Kent Conrad (D-ND) January 6, 1987
28 Trent Lott (R-MS) January 3, 1989 Former Rep
29 Herb Kohl (D-WI) January 3, 1989 Wisconsin 16th Population (1980)
30 Joe Lieberman<6> (ID-CT) January 3, 1989 Connecticut 25th Population (1980)
31 Daniel Akaka (D-HI) May 16, 1990
32 Larry Craig (R-ID) January 3, 1991
33 Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) November 10, 1992
34 Byron Dorgan (D-ND) December 15, 1992
35 Barbara Boxer (D-CA) January 5, 1993 Former Rep (10 years)
36 Judd Gregg (R-NH) January 5, 1993 Former Rep (8 years)
37 Russ Feingold (D-WI) January 5, 1993 Wisconsin 16th Population (1990)
38 Patty Murray (D-WA) Washington 18th Population (1990)
39 Bob Bennett (R-UT) January 5, 1993 Utah 35th Population (1990)
40 Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) June 14, 1993
41 Jim Inhofe (R-OK) November 17, 1994
42 Olympia Snowe (R-ME) January 4, 1995 Former Rep (16 years)
43 Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Former Rep (8 years)
44 Ron Wyden (D-OR) February 6, 1996
45 Sam Brownback (R-KS) November 7, 1996
46 Pat Roberts (R-KS) January 7, 1997 Former Rep (16 years)
47 Richard Durbin (D-IL) January 7, 1997 Former Rep (14 years)
48 Tim Johnson (D-SD) Former Rep (10 years)
49 Wayne Allard (R-CO) January 7, 1997 Former Rep (6 years) - Colorado 26th Population (1990)
50 Jack Reed (D-RI) January 7, 1997 Former Rep (6 years) - Rhode Island 43rd Population (1990)
51 Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Louisiana 21st Population (1990)
52 Jeff Sessions (R-AL) January 7, 1997 Alabama 22nd Population (1990)
53 Gordon Smith (R-OR) Oregon 29th Population (1990)
54 Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Nebraska 36th Population (1990)
55 Susan Collins (R-ME) Maine 38th Population (1990)
56 Mike Enzi (R-WY) Wyoming 50th Population (1990)
57 Chuck Schumer (D-NY) January 6, 1999 Former Rep (18 years)
58 Jim Bunning (R-KY) January 6, 1999 Former Rep (12 years)
59 Mike Crapo (R-ID) Former Rep (6 years)
60 Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) January 6, 1999 Former Rep (4 years)
61 George Voinovich (R-OH) January 6, 1999 Former Governor - Ohio 7th Population (1990)
62 Evan Bayh (D-IN) January 6, 1999 Former Governor - Indiana 15th Population (1990)
63 Bill Nelson (D-FL) January 3, 2001 Former Rep (12 years)
64 Tom Carper (D-DE) Former Rep (10 years)
65 Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Former Rep (4 years) - Michigan 8th Population (1990)
66 John Ensign (R-NV) January 3, 2001 Former Rep (4 years) - Nevada 39th Population (1990)
67 Maria Cantwell (D-WA) January 3, 2001 Former Rep (2 years)
68 Ben Nelson (D-NE) Former Governor
69 Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
70 Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) December 20, 2002
71 Frank Lautenberg<7> (D-NJ) January 3, 2003 Previously a Senator
72 Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) January 3, 2003 Former Rep (8 years) - Georgia Ranked 9th Population (2000)
73 Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Former Rep (8 years) - South Carolina Ranked 24th Population (2000)
74 John Sununu (R-NH) Former Rep (6 years)
75 Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Former Cabinet Member, Former Governor
76 Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Former Cabinet Member
77 John Cornyn<8> (R-TX) Texas Ranked 2nd Population
78 Norm Coleman (R-MN) Minnesota Ranked 21st Population (2000)
79 Mark Pryor (D-AR) January 3, 2003 Arkansas Ranked 32nd Population (2000)
80 Richard Burr (R-NC) January 3, 2005 Former Rep (10 years)
81 Jim DeMint (R-SC) Former Rep (6 years) - South Carolina Ranked 24th Population (2000)
82 Tom Coburn (R-OK) Former Rep (6 years) - Oklahoma Ranked 27th Population (2000)
83 John Thune (R-SD) Former Rep (6 years) - South Dakota Ranked 46th Population (2000)
84 Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Former Rep (5 years, 10 months)
85 David Vitter (R-LA) Former Rep (5 years, 7 months)
86 Mel Martinez (R-FL) Former Cabinet Member
87 Barack Obama (D-IL) January 3, 2005 Illinois Ranked 5th Population (2000)
88 Ken Salazar (D-CO) Colorado Ranked 22nd Population (2000)
89 Bob Menendez (D-NJ) January 18, 2006
90 Ben Cardin (D-MD) January 3, 2007 Former Rep (20 years)
91 Bernie Sanders (I-VT) January 3, 2007 Former Rep (16 years)
92 Sherrod Brown (D-OH) January 3, 2007 Former Rep (14 years)
93 Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) Pennsylvania Ranked 6th Population (2000)
94 Jim Webb<9> (D-VA) Virginia Ranked 12th Population (2000)
95 Bob Corker (R-TN) January 3, 2007 Tennessee Ranked 16th Population (2000)
96 Claire McCaskill (D-MO) January 3, 2007 Missouri Ranked 17th Population (2000)
97 Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Minnesota Ranked 21st Population (2000)
98 Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Rhode Island Ranked 43rd Population (2000)
99 Jon Tester (D-MT) Montana Ranked 44th Population (2000)
100 John Barrasso (R-WY) June 22, 2007

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Do tell me, how succesful was the Dukakis Presidency

same arguments were made aginst impeaching Reagan over Iran Contra.

That is one of the reasons we are in this hole, not following through with that one

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. When they make them

remind them, those were the arguments back in '88

Now tell me, (not you, but them) how successful was the Dukakis Administration... since he was elected president and all *snort*