Sheehan to Pelosi/Reid: "Impeachment is NOT Optional"

[Senator]

John Nichols -- The Nation

"Impeachment is not optional. It's not something that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can say is not on the table," Sheehan said of the incoming Democratic leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, who have expressed caution about employing the tool created by the founders of the American experiment for the purpose of sanctioning errant executives. "It is their duty as officers of the Constitution, who who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, to carry out impeachment."

With the crowd that packed an auditorium at Fordham University's law school cheering her, Sheehan declared, "If George Bush isn't impeached then we should never impeach anyone else. We should just take out of the Constitution. It is a meaningless clause of the Constitution." Like many of the activists across the country who rallied Sunday, Sheehan made a direct connection between impeaching Bush and ending what Lynn Kates, an organizer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who joined the New York forum identified as "an illegal, immoral, unethical war."

"The war and impeachment are intertwined," said Sheehan. "George Bush has said over and over again that the troops aren't coming home while he is president.

Any Questions?

Impeachment IS our postive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

Only Impeachment.


---

[cali]

1. Sheehan does more harm than good

when she issues imperious and factually incorrect statements like that.

[dogday]

3. I am curious as to what you think is incorrect?

could you elaborate for me please?

[cali]

8. It is factually incorrect

to state that Impeachment is not optional. But more importantly, I don't think the impeach-right-this-minute crowd are thinking their demands through logically. It is vital that the House and the Senate hold hearings that delineate all the wrong doing and criminal acts of the administration to illustrate why impeachment is necessary. Simply issuing article now, without the results of investigations that make it exceedingly difficult for repubs in the House to vote for said articles, and repubs in the Senate to vote for conviction, as well as solidifying support from the public, would be counterproductive in the extreme.

Ask yourself this question:

What would happen if the dems introduced article of impeachment next Monday? I'll tell you what would happen; those articles would be voted down. We don't have a strong enough majority to muscle them through. It wouldn't even reach the Senate for a vote. And then what? That action would throw a huge monkey wrench into further action.

Investigations first.

[BuyingThyme]

23. Impeachment is not optional.

It is the law. They "shall" remove on "Impeachment" for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It is one of the laws which all Representatives swear to protect.

ONE EDIT: Pelosi saying "Impeachment is off the table" is like a police chief saying murder is legal.

[Kelly Rupert]

33. That is a profound misunderstanding of English syntax.

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.

This means, rather plainly, that should the Congress impeach and convict a civil officer of the United States, then that officer shall be removed from office.

[BuyingThyme]

50. I'm not sure what misunderstanding you're trying to isolate.

The word "shall" simply identifies the requirements of the Constitution. If it's not a requirement they use "may."

Simply put (and edited for clarity):

...

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall {must} be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

...

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.


...

"Shall" appears 301 times and "may" appears 43 times (in various contexts).

[Atman]

53. Sorry, Thyme, but Kelly's correct

Impeachment is not the same as removal from office. You cannot simply cross out the words "and conviction of." AND carries as much weigh, if not more, than SHALL. They SHALL be removed from office not ONLY on impeachment -- which is the PROCESS, not the end result -- AND CONVICTION OF.

IOW, he can be impeached but NOT removed from office IF he is NOT CONVICTED. Also, he could be convicted outside of the impeachment process, but then that process would still have to take place in order to secure a CONVICTION. Then and only then SHALL he be removed from office. Can't Impeach and remove without a conviction. Period. It is very straightforward.

It does say he SHALL be impeached and removed from office if someone SUSPECTS he is committing bribery, treason, or high crimes. It says he SHALL be removed IF impeached AND convicted.

.

[BuyingThyme]

56. You don't understand my removal of the clause.

It's to demonstrate/clarify that impeachment is a requirement, not to demonstrate that conviction is not necessary.

[Atman]

83. What I don't understand is why you removed the clause at all

The clause is there, you can't just remove it. When you remove it, it changes the meaning entirely. That is my point. Conviction IS necessary as a result of the simple word AND. That point just can't be argued away simply by pretending the word isn't there. It's there. Therefore, impeachment AND conviction are required to remove a president from office.

.

[BuyingThyme]

121. It' doesn't change the meaning at all.

It only adds something.

Again, you do not understand what is being discussed.

For instance, if I say, "Atman doesn't understand the reason for, and background of, this sub thread," it doesn't make false the assertion that "Atman doesn't understand the reason for this sub thread."

Once again, there is no question as to a conviction being necessary, and no assertion in relation to said question has been made by anybody but you.

[Atman]

128. Okay. We're done.

You're wrong.

You're just wrong. Even your example about "Atman" underscores my point. It is very clearly you who doesn't understand that when you remove key words and punctuation, you change the meaning. Which is exactly what you're attempting to do.

Buh bye.

.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. Do You Really Believe This Stuff? That Is So Off The Mark I Don't Know Whether To Cringe Or Laugh.

I see Kelly below did a good job of pointing out the blatant discrepancy, however.

[BuyingThyme]

122. I don't understand what you need explained to you.

Do you not understand what Representatives swear to do when they take an oath to protect the Constitution?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. Of Course I Understand: Hence My Accurate Depiction Of The Factually Incorrect Statement.

Had I not understood, I might've actually thought the post could've had some legitimacy.

[BuyingThyme]

124. You have not even identified a factually incorrect statement,

so how can you possibly depict one accurately?

How 'bout you just try to communicate instead of playing your little game.

Read carefully:

What is factually incorrect?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Sure I Have. Every Single Sentiment Within Every Sentence Of Post 23.

Not a one of them is factually accurate. Not a one of them.

Thankfully, several have already pointed out the significant flaws that were found. If you haven't been able to objectively reconsider your position and understand why they are factual inaccuracies after they've pointed such things out, than it would most likely not yield a different outcome if I just rehashed the same go around with you.

The factual critiques of your post are already stated. I stand firm with them, as I do with all facts.

[BuyingThyme]

131. So, it's your opinion that it IS NOT the sworn duty of

Representatives to impeach presidents who commit treason? You believe they have no duties at all?

Fascinating. Tell us what else you believe, but spare me your little games.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. What Else I Believe? Ok. I Believe That Blatant Strawmen Do Not Deserve Thoughtful Reply.

:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

153. You do not know what a straw man is, but that about says it.

:hi:

[dogday]

28. Have we not had investigations

and even hearings on certain issues? I believe that both can be done.. I believe we need to negate many bills passed and concentrate on the wire-tapping issue...

Maybe not impeachment yet, but to say it is off the table was to me the wrong thing to say.. To say it is not on the agenda would of been better.... We don't have a lot of time,and we are looking to cater to the voters for 2008 as we should be, it is not that far off so I understand what you are saying....

[JacksonWest]

103. The wire tapping issue is the clearest issue for impeaching him.

The law gives the President a two week period to make warrants without a warrant, after which, he must inform the court or have congress modify the law to allow unfettered access to warrants. This program was run in direct violation of the applicable statute, and is a felony. The President's only defense to this is whether or not it was protected under the authorization of force against Iraq.

However, I agree. Impeachment should not be optional. However, like any crime, evidence must be gathered. If there appears to be enough evidence to support an article of impeachment, proceed.

When Clinton was impeached, it was on the heels of an investigation that had been ongoing for three years.

So, Sheehan is right. However, Bush will not be removed from office absent a yet to happen cataclysmic event that drastically shifts the mood of this country and their Republican reps.

[quickesst]

39. I have read...

several of your posts on the issue of impeachment. I can only hope that those who have the power to make it happen share your opinion. Everyone here should stop, take a deep breath, and heed Cali's words. Thanks.
quickesst

[omega minimo]

52. Speaking of breath, Cali should save it and quit saying investigations/impeachment

are mutually exclusive.

RED HERRING

[cali]

62. I have not said that they are mutually exclusive

I have pointed out that introducing articles of impeachment before conducting open and thorough investigations, is highly counterproductive. I stand by that.

Investigation first.

[omega minimo]

96. this either/or word game is even MORE "highly counterproductive"

The call is for thorough Congressional hearings and investigations. Pretending there is a conflict between investigations and impeachment is a pointless game.

[cali]

98. Oh, give it a rest.

It's becoming pretty clear that your problem with me is personal. Whenever I post something about impeachment, you're there to chide me. and nothing I post about it is even inflamatory or different from what many others- such as Will Pitt, are posting. You simply trail after me making derisive and rather meaningless posts. Pathetic.

[omega minimo]

101. Not at all. As I said below, this isn't about you. The word game appears to be an attempt

to make it so.

Once you drop the non-existent conflict, what do you offer to the effort to see justice served and the Constitution restored?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[symbolman]

148. I hope many people do the same for your posts

I've never seen a single person so dismissive of the members here in general, it's getting old, and it appears to me to more than your opinion.

As for silly, you should know, the minute someone pins you with a Red Herring statement the attack is on.

Feel free, looks like a lot of people have already taken you to task here, and I'm glad.

[cali]

150. It may have escaped your notice that

at least as many people here have agreed with me or come to my defense, and as those are generally the folks here that I have the most respect for, quite aside from their agreement on this issue, that's what's important to me. As for your post, it actually made me giggle: What on earth do you mean when you say, "...and it appears to me to more than your opinion."? And what precisely was the red herring you alleged I threw out?

It's a pity you take disagreements on a political discussion board so seriously that it arouses the kind of emotion you're displaying here.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

157. Could you possibly

get any sillier? You just did tell me to go fuck myself. Now you have something in common with Dick Cheney, who said the same thing to Senator Leahy. You certainly have aligned yourself with a despicable man.

No, I'm not gonna alert. I'm just gonna stand back and let you keep digging.

[Imagevision]

48. Senator Reid: "We're going to find out how intelligence was manipulated, taking us to war"

One step will lead to another

[AntiFascist]

59. Umm, it seems to me that Sheehan was mainly upset about the "off the table" remark

which makes Pelosi sound as if she is above the law, in the same way that Bush feels that he is above the law.

[femrap]

159. I figured that the only reason Pelosi said Impeachment

was 'off the table' was because she would then be the PRESIDENT! Cuz if * goes, so does Cheney....and then it's PELOSI '07!

Hey, everyone of those Dems on the Hill know what these investigations are going to show...* and dick are criminals. They have broken the law. They're gonna be impeached. The Dems just didn't want to show their hand...didn't want the criminals to be shredding everything in sight.

Everyone knows of Project Doomsday, right? That was the plan over at DOJ that was to go into effect if the Dems won the House!! They know they're gonna get impeached...why are WE fighting about this???? Look behind the words and realize that the Dems are utilizing some game(wo)menship, OK?

[RiverStone]

77. Saving lives &impeachment must be the priority!

There are many who believe there is enough evidence in plain site to justify issuing the articles today.

here:

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/impeachment_1.htm

I'm a recent convert to the "impeach ASAP" camp. My shift simply came down to doing all within the grasp of We The People to end the daily and horrendous loss of life in Iraq. Saving life takes precedent. Practically speaking, you are right; today it would be voted down in the House.

But the very act of moving on it suggests the the reasons for it are morally too compelling to ignore. Also, acting on it (even if the motion is defeated) tells the world there are some factions of our government that are willing to hold our reckless leaders responsible.

[rinsd]

93. So in other words the "good ones" get to thump their chest and say not I

While people continue to die.

"But the very act of moving on it suggests the the reasons for it are morally too compelling to ignore. Also, acting on it (even if the motion is defeated) tells the world there are some factions of our government that are willing to hold our reckless leaders responsible."

No more moral victories. I want real victories. I want a Democratic majority that will pass good policy and keep themselves in office with good decisions. I want investigations. When those very public hearings are finished, I think the Democrats will be in position to make a decision regarding articles of imnpeachment.

To try to impeach and lose is still losing. There is nothing gained. No one is punished and impeachment turns more and more into a political tool rather than what impeachment advocates claim is its rightful place as a tool against tyranny.

[RiverStone]

95. Complacency will not save lives.

Believe me, I want legislative victories as well (raise min wage, decrease war funding, restore habeas corpus). We agree on that.

I would propose however that it is possible to pursue both legislative and impeachment agendas simultaneously.

Ultimately, I see the impeachment question as akin to a school bus filled with children where the driver falls asleep at the wheel. In this case the driver is Bush. We must remove this dictator from office before the bus goes careening off the cliff. It's that compelling RIGHT NOW. I simply believe that by not pursuing impeachment aggressively now; by the time Bush/Cheney are sworn in for statements, we would be well into the next president's term.

[rinsd]

100. Then you turn impeachment into a political farce

Without the groundwork of extensive investigations, introducing articles of impeachment is asking to lose.

Investigation need not take 2 years (though it could take that long to catalog his abuses) and I do think that Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think we are much in agreement with the exception of the timing.

[omega minimo]

109. Too late. Impeaching Clinton turned it into political farce

The question is whether Constitutional law has been violated.

The answer is yes.

This is why Sheehan and others refer to the sworn duty of Congress members to investigate (and potentially impeach) this president and others who participated.

Now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Hear Hear Cali. I Agree With Your Statement Completely.

The word impeachment shouldn't even be thrown around in a serious context until legitimate and thorough congressional investigations yield substantial evidence of criminal/impeachable acts that are solid enough to win public and more importantly congressional support. Only then, with legitimate evidence in hand, should we then start a real discussion as to the realities of to impeach or not to impeach.

And yes, the post above yours was 100% factually inaccurate.

Hang in there, friend. I see you've taken some abuse. Just don't let it bring ya down, as you are standing on pretty solid rational ground.

[cali]

116. Thanks, OMG.

I do find it a bit depressing that so many folks don't understand that introducing articles of Impeachment now would get us zip in the way of results, and empower the repubs. I also find the whole idolizing of certain figures, bizarre. That the statement you found rational, evoked so much outrage in folks because they felt I wasn't being properly deferential to Sheehan, is slightly disturbing to me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. Just As An Anecdotal Analogy, Yesterday My 3 Yr. Old Really Wanted M&M's.

He couldn't understand why he had to eat dinner first. All he cared about was getting what he wanted; his 'treats'. Even though the option was there for him to get his 'treats', but just had to eat his dinner first, he still threw a demanding 'I WANT TREATS NOW!' tantrum without any level of understanding whatsoever as to why he had to wait until he first ate his dinner. What a tantrum. But then, he's only 3.

Maybe it's something like that. I dunno. :shrug:

But just like you have to keep your composure with a 3 yr old and always maintain love for them as your own flesh and blood, so must we when dealing with zealots who may be too emotionally invested to rationalize in as accurate a manner as they may have otherwise.

[Cleita]

4. If she were a diplomat, that would be true.

But she has chosen the role of the in-your-face activist and what she is doing is in line with her goals. Making our elected officials uncomfortable with their decisions is all our jobs actually if we still want to believe that we live in a democracy.

[goclark]

17. I totally agree ~ Cindy can say what she wants to

and keep their feet to the fire.

Go Cindy~ Speak for those who are afraid to speak!

[stillcool]

6. why? You have a problem

with an american citizen speaking candidly about her opinion?

[cali]

9. Not at all.

She can speak to her heart's content. Do you have a problem with an American citizen candidly disagreeing with Sheehan?

[cassiepriam]

14. People like Cindy thruout history have spoken out and risked their lives

to keep others safe and free.

Thank her, and her ilk, for the right you have to denigrate her.

The day they killed her child she had the right to speak out as much as she wants against the war. I begrudge her nothing.

[cali]

16. I begrudge he nothing either

She every right to say her piece and I have every right to disagree with her. I am grateful that she focused attention on the war and its evils in the summer of 2005. I haven't been so impressed in the last over the past few months. BTW, dissent, my friend, is NOT denigration. It would behoove you to learn the difference, and to be careful about idolizing people.

[stillcool]

15. No. Not at all...

but accusatory statements of 'doing harm' is not. That sounds like 'shut-up' to me.

[cali]

19. I call 'em as I see 'em.

And no it wasn't a call for her to shut-up; it was an assessment of her statement.

[stillcool]

32. because she used the word 'impeach'?

that is the remedy to remove a president, no? And, her use of the word is in reply to a statement by democratic leaders. To say 'impeachment is off the table', is to imply that investigations will not be forthcoming. While that may not be true, the words do convey that meaning. So.....what part of the words selected in this article are harmful in your assessment. I am sure you read further and noticed this:

So far, only one member of the House, outgoing Georgia Democrat Cynthia McKinney, has proposed actual articles of impeachment against Bush and Vice President Cheney. But more than three dozen House Democrats, as well as Independent Bernie Sanders, who in January will join the Senate, signed onto incoming
House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers' resolution to establish a select committee to examine whether impeachment might be the right response to charges that the president and vice president doctored intelligence regarding reasons for going to war in Iraq and committed other acts that could reasonably be defined as high crimes and misdemeanors.

[cali]

37. Wrong.

Saying that impeachment is off the table, in no way precludes investigations.

[stillcool]

78. To you. To many...

of us who aren't as knowledgeable as you, it might infer otherwise. You know what? It's a long way to go to pitch a bitch.

[Kelly Rupert]

38. I think it's more the word "not" followed by "optional." n/t

[Senator]

21. Trouble is, your are not "disagreeing" with her

If you want to get precise, you are slandering her -- or perhaps libeling her, as this forum could be construed as a published document.

Your use of the phrase "factually incorrect" is "factually incorrect." And by using it you are publicly calling her a ignoramous or a liar.

Since whether or not impeachment is "optional" in any given circumstance cannot reasonably be determined to be a "fact," you have no rational basis for an allegation of dishonesty or ignorance on her part.

The damage to her reputation from such a false charge could be considerable, and thus actionable.

--

[mondo joe]

22. If it's not optional than by definition it is mandated, so it will have to happen.

Right?

If not, then in fact it is optional.

[EnviroBat]

25. Thank you for pointing that out to her...

Hmm, I can't seem to find her rebuttal... Nope. not here, not over here.

[cali]

34. Oh, but I have rebutted

that stupid and grossly inaccurate threat. To state that anything I said in this thread is libelous, is absurd.

[cali]

30. Sorry, that's just wrong.

Pretty clear you haven't a clue what libel is. And don't just tell me that my assertion that her statement that impeachment is not optional is wrong- tell me why. It is commonly held that impeachable offences are whatever Congress decides they are. High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution. Thus, it is not true that Congress has no option but to impeach.

As for your scurrilous attempt to threaten me by saying that my words on this thread are actionable, it won't work, and it's utter nonsense.

[Senator]

51. Sorry too, but you introduced "fact" into the matter

You did not assert that her statement was "wrong." And I've already told you why the use of "factually incorrect" is not warranted or defensible.

Sheehan simply said what she said. That in her opinion their duty demands action.

And all I did was describe your comment about her as being something beyond disagreement. I don't consider that to be particularly "scurrilous" or "threaten(ing)."

Your mileage may vary.

--

[Kelly Rupert]

54. You've said no such thing.

You never bothered explaining your insane opinion that calling someone incorrect is libelous.

[Senator]

66. Not simply "incorrect"

But "factually incorrect." There is a difference.

Fact and opinion are not the same thing. Nor are objectionable and insane.

---

[cali]

68. Fact:

Congress can impeach or not, at their discretion. How hard is that to understand. Cindy Sheehan is factually incorrect. So are you.

Hey, I like saying that: You are factually incorrect when you state that Congress must impeach.

[Senator]

87. Well, not exactly

And this is the trouble with conflating fact and opinion. Which is what I described as going beyond "disagreement."

Congress certainly has the authority to impeach or not. But whether they have a moral (non-optional) duty to act in this circumstance is a matter of opinion. Sheehan simply stated her opinion on that matter.

To challenge that opinion on a factual basis mischaracterizes what she said. And it implies that she is being willfully or ignorantly deceptive about a factual matter.

The same is true about your perceived "threat" of legal action. Should you wish to claim that as a "fact," it would be your responsibility to demonstrate that a reasonable expectation of litigation would always arise from a few anonymous words in a forum post.

Had our Euphemedia remained this precise about fact and opinion we might not live in the world of truthiness that we do today.

--

[Name removed]

90. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelly Rupert]

71. Cindy Sheehan is factually incorrect.

She claimed that impeachment is not an option for the Congress. This is factually incorrect.

[cali]

55. Of course you threatened me.

Of course you tried, in particularly loathsome way, to shut me up. And let me again repeat that what Sheehan said is FACTUALLY incorrect.

You can deny that you threatened me from now til doomsday, but you did. Don't do it again.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelly Rupert]

35. That is perhaps the most ridiculous abuse of law I've seen today.

Claiming that someone is factually incorrect is the most protected form of disagreement possible.

[rinsd]

40. What a huge load of BS aimed at shutting down criticism

"If you want to get precise, you are slandering her -- or perhaps libeling her, as this forum could be construed as a published document"

Cool lawyerly references from obviously not a lawyer. Or a lawyer who is so ethically challenged they use SLAPP suits because someone dared insult their fav activist.

"And by using it you are publicly calling her a ignoramous or a liar"

Which last I checked is perfectly acceptable to do so with a public figure. But the odd thing is Cali didn't do that.

"The damage to her reputation from such a false charge could be considerable, and thus actionable."

The damage to Sheehan's reputation was done when she accepted her publicity being co-opted by others leading to her appearing at the World Social forum hugging Chavez.

She was the all american Mom who had tragically lost her son and wanted answers. Now she's the more famous of anti-war activists with much the same efficacy.

She is of course welcome to do what she wishes but she is not immune from criticism.

And this line "The damage to her reputation from such a false charge could be considerable, and thus actionable." is one of the more pathetic threats I have seen on the internet.

[Kelly Rupert]

42. I don't think anyone has any threat of legal action from that one. n/t

[onenote]

47. Huh?

Impeachment is optional. That is a simple unequivocal fact. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the commencement of an impeachment proceeding.

And suggesting that Sheehan does more harm than good when she puts the cart before the horse by arguing that Democratic leaders should make impeachment a high (if not the highest priority) is hardly libelous. The leadership, in this case, actually is following, rather than dictating to, the rank and file Democrats in the House and Senate. How many of the Democrats elected to the House a month ago ran on an impeachment platform? One, maybe? If impeachment did not loom large enough in the public debate to warrant discussion in the election campaign just concluded, it would be a serious error for members to make it a high priority after getting elected.

That being said, I'll reiterate what I've said countless times before. While the issue of impeachment was not part of the debate during the last election cycle, the need for COngress to reassert its oversight and investigatory role with respect to the administration was. Therefore, it is entirely proper for John COnyers, et al to conduct investigations as an end unto themselves, without making them "about" impeachment. It will be those investigation that may lead to a discussion of impeachment, not the other way around.

[cali]

49. Excellent post. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

92. She's a public figure. Actionable my ass.

All people are offering is their opinions, that's all.

[omega minimo]

36. "Imperious"

:spray: :rofl:

Cindy Sheehan is as down to earth as ya get.

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Imperious (adj)

Arrogantly domineering or overbearing.

Personally, I think that a private citizen claiming that the Congress does not have any option but to do what she wants is rather imperious.

[cali]

44. That is precisely what I meant

Thanks.

[omega minimo]

57. What part of "sworn duty" don't you understand?

[Kelly Rupert]

70. I wasn't aware the duty was sworn to Ms. Sheehan. n/t

[omega minimo]

86. evasive bullshit

:thumbsdown:

[onenote]

89. and your point is what?

The current oath of office says the following: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

The Constitution does not mandate impeachment. It leaves it to the discretion of the members of the Congress to commence such proceedings or not, in their judgment. So where is there a violation of their oath of office?

[omega minimo]

97. Read it again.

[onenote]

114. okay, I did. And your point is what?

[omega minimo]

115. You don't see the answer to your question right there?

:yoiks::wow:

[onenote]

133. nope.

I see where members of Congress swear to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office.

Again...nothing in the Constitution mandates impeachment proceedings be brought whenever a president is believed to have committed an unconstitutional act. Presidents are sued for taking, or authorizing their subordinates to take, actions that are alleged to be unconstitutional all the time. Sometimes those suits succeed, sometimes they fail. But no one suggests that every time a member of COngreess or anyone else thinks that the President has taken an unconstitutional action that impeachment is "mandated". Harry Truman was found to have violated the Constitution when he ordered the nations steel factories seized, but he wasn't impeached. Clinton was sued over any number of allegedly unconstitutional acts. For example, a group of Congressman sued CLinton alleging that he was unconstitutionally continuing an offensive military attack by United States against the Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from the Congress of the United States. The court dismissed the claim without reaching the merits because it found the indvidual members of congress bringing the suit lacked "standing". I don't recall anyone clamoring for Clinton's impeachment over this allegedly unconstitutional military action.

The point is that members of Congress have many ways that they can "support and defend" the constitution against actions by the President without bringing an impeachment action. It is one of the weapons that they have, but it is not the only weapon and it is a weapon whose use is discretionary, not mandatory.

[omega minimo]

117. GWB "I never said Osama flew airplanes into buildings"

"The Constitution does not mandate impeachment."

Amazing.

[BuyingThyme]

127. She didn't say that.

She said that, in this situation, impeachment is a requirement, not an option.

Similarly, trying a clear-cut case of murderer is a requirement, not an option, for a district attorney -- even if both the murderer and the district attorney work for the same county.

You have totally misrepresented what she said.

[KingFlorez]

158. So I take you think Bush shouldn't be impeached?

He's committed enough offenses to merit being impeached

[Phredicles]

2. Exactly so - recommended.

The Decider keeps saying he's open to "new approaches" but then dismisses anything that's not a glorified Stay The Course - Nothing will change until he and The Dick are gone.

[Imagevision]

5. "If George Bush isn't impeached then we should never impeach anyone else"

[bowens43]

7. When did we elect Sheehan?

[cassiepriam]

12. In this country the power belongs to the people, not just elected officials.

I know the repugs would have you believe otherwise....

[cassiepriam]

10. People like Cindy have risked their lives throughout history

to make sure that others on this planet can stay safe
and free.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Right now Nancy Pelosi has a lot more power than Ms. Sheehan

Her opinion will carry much more weight. Perhaps Ms. Sheehan should have run for office.

[rinsd]

43. She considered it then realized she would likely lose.

She was considering running in CA for the Senate against Feinstein.

Then she realized that Feinstein was more popular in CA than even Boxer and had a huge warchest ready and waiting.

[pberq]

11. Cindy is right - if only the Democrats would start

acting like they are an opposition party and hold these criminals accountable.

[Kelly Rupert]

45. Personally, I'd rather they would start

acting like the majority party--since they are no longer the opposition come this January--and pass good policy.

[Reterr]

13. How many posts do I need before I can recommend something

:(

[goclark]

18. Welcome Reterr, I'll recommend for you!

[Reterr]

20. Thanks :)

[mzmolly]

24. If her son were still alive in Iraq, would she want him home before

we started impeachment proceedings? I know if I had a child in Iraq, impeachment would be my second priority. Bringing my child home alive would be number one.

[Tom Joad]

26. Ending the funding of this criminal war is not an option, either. You go Cindy!

[Imagevision]

27. Sheehan is right, Impeachment isn't optional, it's a requirement!

[Kelly Rupert]

31. I'm pretty sure that since the Congress could

legally impeach, and could legally not impeach, then impeachment is indeed an option.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

60. Harry Reid: "We're going to find out how intelligence was manipulated, taking us to war"

and the rest I believe will take care of itself...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. Not merely is it not optional, it isn't even possible

Saying "we must impeach Bush" is like saying "we must have Bush struck by lightning" - it demonstrates a terrifying lack of grasp of reality.

The democrats do *not* have the power to impeach Bush. They have the power to initiate impeachment procedings, which will inevitably fail, because there is no chance whatsoever of enough Republicans breaking ranks to make them succeed. It's simple maths.

The question we should be asking is not "should the Democrats impeach Bush?" but "should the Democrats initiate (doomed) impeachment procedings?"

The answer is very clearly no - like any other criminal prosecution, you shouldn't bring one unless there is a chance of conviction.

[BuyingThyme]

65. Saying "we must impeach Bush" is like saying

"we must conduct oversight."

It's like saying "we must do our sworn duty."

[cali]

67. No it is not the same thing

and if that's what she meant, that's what she should have said.

[BuyingThyme]

69. That's not what she meant. And not what she said.

She said she was going to ignore her sworn duty (ignore the Constitution) no matter what.

The Constitution is "off the table."

[Kelly Rupert]

72. You won't find a legal scholar

who holds the same Constitutional opinion that you do. And since the matter has not been decided upon by the Supreme Court, there is no legal mandate to follow your interpretation.

[BuyingThyme]

156. Funny how the exact opposite is true,

and how every legitimate Constitutional scholar says it's the duty of Congress to impeach this President, and nobody but you, Pelosi, and a few others say otherwise.

And I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the Supreme Court, and Constitutional opinion, but I suspect you're having trouble understanding what is being discussed here.

[Cameron27]

74. Thank you.

The Patriot Act, IWR, and the "torture bill" may have mitigating effects. I don't remember if bush ever gave any testimony under oath, but he did lie about Iraq; will they settle for that?

Investigating war profiteering may be the best bet.

More questions than answers, but that's why Conyers and Pelosi are calling for investigations.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. And when Cindy Sheehan is the Speaker of the House, that will be her decision.

Beyond that, she's not in a position to issue orders to Nancy Pelosi.

Christ- let the fucking congress start before you ride these folks' ass into the ground!

[proud2BlibKansan]

136. Nancy Pelosi works for her and for you and for me

You bet Cindy Sheehan has the right to tell Pelosi what she wants her to do.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Of course she does. And I have the right to say that as much as I respect her

Cindy Sheehan is not driving the boat.

I just wonder what is up with the eagerness to attack a congress that hasn't even come into session yet. Good grief.

[proud2BlibKansan]

140. She wants the war to end

She wants justice.

Surely you can understand that.

[cali]

139. And Nancy Pelosi has the right

to not follow Cindy Sheehan's exhortations. It's not as if any constituent is directly entitled to issue directives to any Congress person. We elect them to represent us, and if we feel they are failing to do so, we can attempt to vote them out of office.

[LittleClarkie]

64. How's her hunger strike going

Just wondering.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Considering that fact that she is not dead,

I'd guess than she has given that up.

[LittleClarkie]

75. It wasn't exactly a Ghandi-esque strike

It was more of a liquid fast. I think she was doing it through Code Pink. Ensure milkshakes and the like. Just nothing solid.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. That's not a hunger strike, its a diet

[LittleClarkie]

79. Ah, my answer. It ended in September

http://www.troopshomefast.org/article.php?list=type&type=144

Mainly a symbolic fast, it seems.

[Blue-Jay]

80. LOL

[Disturbed]

82. How much of an Investigation is needed to

determine that the Busholini Admin. has violated the FISA Law 32 times. 32 Felonies and a violation of the US Constitution should suffice for Impeachment Hearings to commence!

[cali]

84. Yep. And the articles would immediately

be voted down. How hard is it to understand that the votes in the House, let alone in the Senate are NOT there. Do you really think the Blue Dogs, or moderates, or DLC dems are going to vote yea?

We need investigations that lay all the malfeasance of the admin out clearly and unarguably in order to get the votes in both Houses, and to strengthen and solidify support from the public.

[symbolman]

147. You have NO IDEA

how it would go. No one does, and the arrogance and negativity is astounding.

PROVE that the votes aren't there.

The people of this country OVERWHELMINGLY voted the BUMS OUT.

The republicans are FRIGHTENED NOW, and THAT COULD allow an impeachment to go forward ALONE.

You have NO IDEA what would happen, nothing but arrogant conjecture, so quit telling everyone they are WRONG when YOU very likely ARE.

Of course you DO tend to wasted a lot of bandwidth here, and to me that indicates someone who's busy setting little fires at the perimeter of the battle to keep the fog going.

We have IGNORE buttons for just this reason.

Of course you never took the time to acknowledge my CREDENTIALS as an activist, just nothing but DRIVE BY shootings and BLIP, you're GONE.

[cali]

155. Another post

filled with unmerited outrage. Yes, of course that's my opinion. Yes, it's my opinion that articles introduced prior to real investigations would get shot down immediately. As I said, Blue Dogs, DLCers, and other moderate dems are not about to vote for them. Quite a few have made statements to that effect. No politician in this cycle, to my knowledge, ran on impeachment.

And maybe you should calm down and stop tossing the ad hominems about with such abandon.

As for recognizing your credentials as an activist, I find your demands for such recognition, a trifle ironic and a bit sad.

[LittleClarkie]

88. Who were you replying to?

I was asking about a hunger strike.

[onenote]

91. Final adjudication of 32 violations of FISA? Link?

[deaniac21]

81. Cindy is a true intellectual and leader!!

[JNelson6563]

85. this is where it gets out of hand

I appreciate Cindy's passion and I think she should be rallying the masses against this war. I do think the support she's gotten goes to her head when she thinks she can dictate direction to our incoming Speaker and Sen. Leader.

When activists get a little too full of themselves they start to lose effectiveness, it gets to me more about them than the cause.

Julie

[LittleClarkie]

94. Nothing will ever beat the Crawford protest

Would you agree with her assessment that the anti-war sentiment really started to grow because of that protest? Or was there another catalyst? That assertion was made, I think by her, in an article I read. It sounded alittle self-important, but less so if she is correct.

[rinsd]

106. I think she was a catalyst in alot of ways

She put the all american face on the death caused by this war. She wanted to know why from the President. It was incredibly compelling stuff.

What has happened since is that she has been coopted. The self identified Republican was all of a sudden a lefty celebrity hanging with Hugo at the World Social Forum. That turned her from a unique perspective to one of dozens famous anti-war people and in my opinion killed her efficacy. She is of course welcome to the life she seeks I just know that the Sheehan who started this thing is alot different than the one I see right now.

[JNelson6563]

129. No argument here

but nothing she has done since has been nearly as effective and, with each latest project she seems less influential and a bit more shrill.

Just my .0125

Julie

[Blue_Roses]

102. well said

:thumbsup:

[IA_Seth]

99. She doesn't speak for me. n/t

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

104. "the tool created by the founders of the american experiment"

impeachment was an aztec tradition long b4 the founders "created" it.. just saying

[cali]

108. I don't know anything about

the aztec tradition, but it's long been a part of English law. That, of course, is what the founders drew on.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. All I'll Say Is She's Wrong Here. It Is An Option And There Is No Such Duty Specific To Impeachment

I can understand her and other's passions about it, but that doesn't change nor rewrite the constitution.

[omega minimo]

113. Strange that you have to keep educating people on the same basic points over and over again

Why some people want to fight each other, over the obvious, the encoded and the true, may be attributed to the elimination of civics and history in the schools....

AFTER THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, LET'S RECOMMIT TO QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION!! :bounce:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. It's Just Giving Opinion. Some Keep Putting The Impeachment Cart Before The Investigatory Horse.

The poster upthread just offered a civil and respectful opinion on how the upfront rhetoric isn't going to get us anywhere but rather investigations might. The fighting seemed to stem from those who wouldn't appreciate a dissenting or alternative opinion on the matter.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinto]

134. Just a reminder. Even hot topics can be discussed civilly. We encourage it,

and our membership agreement states it:

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

"The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Thanks.

[H2O Man]

135. I sure do like Cindy Sheehan.

I agree with her on this issue 100%. I think that people who feel the same way should be contacting as many elected officials as possible. Keep in mind that it isn't just the person from your district/state that represents you. When someone is the head of a committee, you should be contacting their office. That means we should be contacting Waxman and Conyers, among others.

Now, I've said on one or two DU threads that I think we should be aiming to have congressional investigations started with a goal of impeaching Dick Cheney. Some of you older DUers will recall that Cheney is the vice president of the United States. We don't see much of him lately, but he's still out there.

I try to keep an open mind. So when other DUers say we should move faster towards impeachment, or target George W. Bush for impeachment, I'm thinking they are on the same side as I am. I hope that they will advocate their position, just as surely as I am going to be doing so.

There are others who do not support the concept of impeachment. They are as entitled to their beliefs as I am to mine, and I think it is fine for them to try to promote their positions as they see fit. I have a funny image in my mind of their writing letters to Waxman and Conyers, taking the position that Bush and Cheney haven't done anything that is impeachable. But they probably find my ideas on the lying that got us into the war in Iraq, or the administration's hostility towards the Bill of Rights, misguided.

To each their own. I'm glad Cindy Sheehan is speaking out.

[H2O Man]

137. Another opinion I sure do like:

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must be this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

– Two Speeches by Frederick Douglass; Frederick Douglass; Rochester; 1857

[porphyrian]

141. Wow, opinions are like assholes - there are a lot of them here.

Impeachment is the process built into our Constitution to deal with those in power who abuse that power, to stop them before they can do further harm. It used to be that the mere threat of it was enough to force the guilty to resign. Anyone naive enough to think that this will happen with the current administration needs to be slapped about the face until they snap out of it. We MUST choose to impeach, or we too disregard the Constitution we purport to hold dear, proving that we no longer believe in it either.

[H2O Man]

149. I sure Like Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"Action is with the scholar subordinate, but it is essential. Without it he is not yet man. Without it thought can never ripen into truth."

[H2O Man]

151. Goethe:

"He only earns his freedom and existence who daily conquers them anew."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

143. This Part:

"There are others who do not support the concept of impeachment. They are as entitled to their beliefs as I am to mine, and I think it is fine for them to try to promote their positions as they see fit. I have a funny image in my mind of their writing letters to Waxman and Conyers, taking the position that Bush and Cheney haven't done anything that is impeachable. But they probably find my ideas on the lying that got us into the war in Iraq, or the administration's hostility towards the Bill of Rights, misguided."

Doesn't seem to be referencing anyone on DU. Was it meant to or was it in fact talking about the right-wingers? I wasn't perfectly sure how you intended it to come off, but I do know I haven't seen anyone on DU, or if so, extremely rarely, advocating or portraying such things.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nini]

145. Have Pelosi and Reid said INVESTIGATIONS are off the table?

NO.


Let's start from the beginning here and proceed when evidence has been gathered to proceed.

If we are going to defend the Constitution we must also do it in a manner that will allow evidence gathering to present during impeachment proceedings.

[Senator]

152. Yes, Pelosi used those word -- Reid used different words.

Pelosi was on 60 Minutes.

Reid spoke to the Christian Science Monitor

Later, the senators added that they were not pushing for impeachment, of either Bush or Cheney.

"One of the things that we were able to cut off pretty quickly is the 'impeach Bush' program," said Reid

Now, they might change their views come Jan. 3rd when they become literally responsible for acting to stop the ongoing Geneva Violations (torture) or face the reality of becoming complicit with war crimes. Warner, McCain, and Graham suddenly got active when the regime tried to get them to "sign on."

But some of hope we can persude them before that to stop Rationalizing for Inaction.

--

[pinto]

160. Locking.

Moderators have tried to help keep this thread on track as a topic for discussion, but we can't keep rolling the same rock uphill in light of the continued personal attacks, circular sniping and general incivility. Sorry.