Vermont Representatives Declare Impeachment "Impractical"

[Jcrowley]

Delegation closed to call for impeachment

Published: Tuesday, March 6, 2007
By David Gram
The Associated Press

MONTPELIER -- At Town Meeting Day last year, then-Rep. Bernie Sanders cautioned against a drive to impeach President Bush, saying that with Republican control of both houses of Congress the effort would be "impractical."

This year, the number of Vermont towns voting on impeachment resolutions at town meeting is expected to be about two dozen, up from five in 2006. Sanders is a U.S. senator, and Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Sanders isn't jumping on the impeachment bandwagon, and he's not alone.

Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said through spokespeople Monday that they had better things to do than to be interviewed on the topic.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS02/703060308/1007/NEWS02&theme=

But isn't it your sworn duty to protect the constitution which is being shredded daily by BushCo?

[jakem]

1. Damn it! Living in Vermont is impractical.

Get on with it people! If vermont cant step up, who will?!

[Lerkfish]

2. at this point, impeachment is a moral imperative. to avoid doing so is a dereliction of duty

so say I

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Y'know what? I trust Bernie Sanders. I trust Russ Feingold.

Both of them say that impeachable offenses have occurred, but that impeachment is impractical. Emotionally, I wanna have a cathartic cleansing of the government, one big purging like a dose of ipecac. But I think those guys know what they're doing, and I think they have the long-term good of the country foremost in their minds. Let the investigations roll, let us extract ourselves from that insane war, let the nation come to repudiate the Bushies & all they stand for. I'd like an impeachment, but I'm willing to listen to people like Conyers, Sanders & Feingold when they say otherwise.

[mmonk]

5. Someone has to define impractical to me.

If impeachment is impractical, it should be removed from the constitution. Either it's a damn lie or it isn't.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Practicality is a situational matter.

There are times when it's just not gonna work. Now may be one of those times. We only have 51 (nominal) Dems in the Senate & would have to pick up more Republicans than are available. Hagel is the only one I would give 50% odds on, and we might lose Holy Joementum. I think we have a choice between a chance at some meaningful legislation in the next 2 years and a failed impeachment ordeal. Can't have both. At most, we might shorten the Bush reign by a year. A year of Cheney? What's the gain? Or, if not Cheney (make up your own scenario), a year of whom? Romney?

[mmonk]

9. Justice is never impractical.

A conviction by the senate is not necessary for a member of government to be impeached. Without going through the process, elected people are above the constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said we are a free people. It just can't be said with any shread of honesty.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Impeachment without conviction is worse than not trying

the impeachment in the first place. It plays as a vindication.
There are other possibilities, Criminal prosecution after he leaves office, for example.

[mmonk]

11. Glad other parts of law do not fall under that description.

It's like saying murder shouldn't be prosecuted as a crime, because the jury may acquit. No, the real crime against the people of this country is not even trying to protect them from abuse of power.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.

[mmonk]

15. A political process that by virtue of our constitution, is a part of our law.

It allows for the trying of an elected official where civil or criminal law does not apply. It's intention was to protect the people from violations of our constitution and/or proper conduct of that official's duties of office.

[Jcrowley]

20. It's a constiutional obligation

if impeachable offenses have been committed. Can anyone here say impeachable offenses have not been committed?

[EFerrari]

12. That's a political calculation and it's only a calculation.

Impeaching Clinton worked out pretty well for the Thugs, didn't it? They got months of screaming headlines. So, historically, that calculation would seem to be off.

I'm working for impeachment every day and I'm going to leave the politics to the politicians. Meanwhile, they're going to be dragged back to the table kicking and screaming.

[madokie]

19. no two ways about it

[rox63]

6. Perhaps impeachment is impractical...

...but it surely does the heart good to be able to vote for it. So I suggest that every town hold these votes. Let the people's voices be heard. :patriot:

[EFerrari]

14. Democracy is impractical, too, but that doesn't mean we give it up.

:)

[WilliamPitt]

4. I'd settle for an Iraq debate in the Senate

But we can't have that, because Warner can kill it (as he did), and because the Dem leadership can't thwart Warner.

If having a debate on Iraq, via a non-binding resolution with no force of law, is a bridge too far...how on Earth will impeachment be carried off?

[mmonk]

17. Technically, impeachment is easier. All the dems have to do

is draw up articles of impeachment in the House and vote on them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. They "have better things to do"? Like what? Failing to pass non-binding resolutions?

If the likes of Sanders and Leahy can't be trusted to do their jobs, who can?

The system is broken.

[dkofos]

16. It doesn't matter what they said last year, or even now,

What matters is that when the time comes to vote on impeachment
these three men will vote the way the people want.

YES on IMPEACHMENT

[radfringe]

18. then we have to scream louder

they are OUR employees -- we're the BOSS of THEM