86% Think Bush Should be IMPEACHED

[Vandeervecken]

Oh but we are in a declared state of war and as such the president is well within his constitutional rights as per the inherent war powers of the president:

We are most certainly not in a state of declared war. We have not been in a state of declared war since the close of World War Two's. Nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to suspend the Constitution, nothing.

And here's the specific statutory authorization:

Congress has no power to authorize suspention of the Constitution, nor did this act do that in any case.

And here's the war powers of the president specified by Article II section 2 of the constitution:

None of which apply to anythong other than the armed forces. Suspending the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with running the military.

Legally you don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes indeed I do. Nobody has the power to ignore the Constitution legally.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

LOL!

Where in the section you quoted does it say this?

"That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons ..."
​

Are we now considering the US one of "those nations" which "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations?"

We got hit in the U.S. not overseas by people who were in our country for quite some time before they struck:

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We are most certainly not in a state of declared war. We have not been in a state of declared war since the close of World War Two's. Nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to suspend the Constitution, nothing.

Maybe you aught to read the war powers resolution of 1973 again, we are in a state of war we have been since the attack of 9-11.

Congress has no power to authorize suspention of the Constitution, nor did this act do that in any case.

The congress has the power to grant the president special powers during war time, that's the whole point of the inherent war powers in Article II section 2.

None of which apply to anythong other than the armed forces. Suspending the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with running the military.

NSA, FBI, CIA, DOD, DOS, are extentions of the military that came into existence after the constitution was written the president does control these organizations.

Yes indeed I do. Nobody has the power to ignore the Constitution legally.

The president has the authority during war time to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the Constitution and preserve the Union, eg Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, and FDR interning some hundred thousand U.S. citizens of Japanese discent.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Maybe you aught to read the war powers resolution of 1973 again, we are in a state of war we have been since the attack of 9-11.

We are not in a state of war and have not been since the end of World War Two. The declarations of War issued in December of 1941 are the very last ones the US Congress has even voted on. You are just quite simply wrong here. Congress authorized the use of force, they did not declare war. There is an enormous difference legally.

The congress has the power to grant the president special powers during war time, that's the whole point of the inherent war powers in Article II section 2.

Nothing in Article 2 gives the President power to suspend the Constitution. In fact every listed power in Article 2 applies solely to the military.

NSA, FBI, CIA, DOD, DOS, are extentions of the military that came into existence after the constitution was written the president does control these organizations.

No they are not extensions of the military, other than the DOD. FBI is the Treasury department, CIA and NSA were set up specifically to not be a military intelligence agencies which already existed. Nor at any rate can the President order any agency of the government to break Constitutional limits.

The president has the authority during war time to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the Constitution and preserve the Union, eg Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, and FDR interning some hundred thousand U.S. citizens of Japanese discent.

I invite you to cite the relevant part of the Constitution to back your claim these actions were legal. You might note we had to pay damages to those interred in World War Two because the actions were illegal and unconstitutional. We also issued a formal government apology for breaking the law in that case. Hardly a good example for you to use. At any rate and again, because others have broken the law does not make breaking the law legal. If I get pulled over for driving 90 in a 55 zone the fact others were going 90 will not help my defense at all.

 

[Vandeervecken]

lol, before you listen to anything this guy says, let's get some perspective on another stance this person holds:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=187634#post187634

Just to give some perspective.

Interesting that the person I see on this forum that spews the most insults, profanity, and out of topic nonsense should be a member of the moderating team. Makes one question what qualifications are required for the job.

My position that Islam is violent is defensible, your positions that Hitler was a leftist, the Declaration of Independence is the Constitution and the other nonsense you vomit forth are not. I stand by my claim there and if you care to debate it in a proper forum let's do it. Bringing it up here is off topic though, as any moderator worth a darn should know.

 

[Deegan]

We are not in a state of war and have not been since the end of World War Two. The declarations of War issued in December of 1941 are the very last ones the US Congress has even voted on. You are just quite simply wrong here. Congress authorized the use of force, they did not declare war. There is an enormous difference legally.




Nothing in Article 2 gives the President power to suspend the Constitution. In fact every listed power in Article 2 applies solely to the military.



No they are not extensions of the military, other than the DOD. FBI is the Treasury department, CIA and NSA were set up specifically to not be a military intelligence agencies which already existed. Nor at any rate can the President order any agency of the government to break Constitutional limits.



I invite you to cite the relevant part of the Constitution to back your claim these actions were legal. You might note we had to pay damages to those interred in World War Two because the actions were illegal and unconstitutional. We also issued a formal government apology for breaking the law in that case. Hardly a good example for you to use. At any rate and again, because others have broken the law does not make breaking the law legal. If I get pulled over for driving 90 in a 55 zone the fact others were going 90 will not help my defense at all.

We may not be in a war, but the congress did give the president the authority to do whatever he needed to do (by any means necessary), to protect Americans, and to seek out the enemy of our nation. This is where you fall short on your usual anti-government rhetoric, and where lawyers, much more intelligent, and knowledgable then you and I, have come to the conclusion that the president was well with-in his executive powers to act accordingly. You are obviously one of these ignorant folks who don't understand why our founding fathers allowed amendments. They are there because they knew the world would change, and thus so would our document, it changes everyday. Now things might not have changed in the cabin in the woods you live in, surrounded by your many fire arms, and armed with your anti-government literature, but the outside world is changing daily. Get outside more often, that would be the best advice I could give you.

 

[Engimo]

You are obviously one of these ignorant folks who don't understand why our founding fathers allowed amendments.

Er.. yeah. Get one of those passed and then maybe we can talk about that. Until then, things that are unconstitutional are illegal.

 

[Deegan]

Er.. yeah. Get one of those passed and then maybe we can talk about that. Until then, things that are unconstitutional are illegal.

That was not meant to pertain to this issue, the president is well with-in his executive war powers to act in this way. I will eat my hat if he is found to have done anything unconstitutional, I believe those who I have read on this issue, you kids here are just blinded hatred. This talk of impeachment is nothing new, this is soooo last year.:roll:

 

[oldreliable67]

There has been considerable debate back and forth at:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6956&page=7

on the legality of the NSA surveillance program. Given the posts here, you might want to check it out if you haven't already done so.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... but the congress did give the president the authority to do whatever he needed to do (by any means necessary), to protect Americans, and to seek out the enemy of our nation.

Actually, I think it's a little more specific than that.
Further, since it was not an amendment to the Constitution, it is superseded by the Constitution. Congress could not have granted the executive branch immunity to Constitutional requirements w/o amending the Constitution.

... lawyers, much more intelligent, and knowledgable then you and I, have come to the conclusion that the president was well with-in his executive powers to act accordingly.

Folks smarter than you or I also said the Titanic was unsinkable. What of it?

You are obviously one of these ignorant folks who don't understand why our founding fathers allowed amendments. They are there because they knew the world would change, and thus so would our document, it changes everyday.

As soon as the "strict constructionist" Presidential Administration gets a Constitutional amendment passed I'll be able see where this would be an issue of relevance wrt this wiretapping etc.
AFAICT, there has been no recent amendment abrogating the Fourth. Please advise if I missed the passage of this.

Get outside more often, that would be the best advice I could give you.

I'm sure your unsolicited advice will be weighed as it deserves and given correspondingly amounts of careful consideration.
However, it seems awfully personal a presumptive advice to give in the midst of a debate.

 

[Navy Pride]

Below is a copy of the latest MSNBC-Newweek poll on Impeaching Bush.

(I strongly suggest copying this poll down, as it may be pulled off the internet by Corporate Media Nazis.)

Here's a direct link to the poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

How many here think Bush should be impeached?

ROTFLMAO:lol:

 

[RightinNYC]

ROTFLMAO:lol:

86% of americans think my **** should be in their mouth

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, I think it's a little more specific than that.
Further, since it was not an amendment to the Constitution, it is superseded by the Constitution. Congress could not have granted the executive branch immunity to Constitutional requirements w/o amending the Constitution.

Yes but the inherent war powers of the president take precedent. Congress granted those war powers in the Joint Resolution of congress on September 14, 2001 in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973 and in this resolution congress stated that the president could use any means necessary to take down AlQaeda.

Folks smarter than you or I also said the Titanic was unsinkable. What of it?

As soon as the "strict constructionist" Presidential Administration gets a Constitutional amendment passed I'll be able see where this would be an issue of relevance wrt this wiretapping etc.
AFAICT, there has been no recent amendment abrogating the Fourth. Please advise if I missed the passage of this.

Article II section 2 look into it.

I'm sure your unsolicited advice will be weighed as it deserves and given correspondingly amounts of careful consideration.
However, it seems awfully personal a presumptive advice to give in the midst of a debate.

 

[Lefty]

TOT, this didn't give the president the power to break the law and conveniently forget about the 4th Amendment. This gave him the power to act with the power of the US military.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

TOT, this didn't give the president the power to break the law and conveniently forget about the 4th Amendment. This gave him the power to act with the power of the US military.

Say it with me INHERENT WAR POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, Roosevelt interned U.S. citizens for no other reason than they were of Japanese dissent.


Congress granted these war powers to the president on September 14, 2001:

September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

 

[Lefty]

Say it with me INHERENT WAR POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, Roosevelt interned U.S. citizens for no other reason than they were of Japanese dissent.


Congress granted these war powers to the president on September 14, 2001:

They granted military power to the president. When will that get through your head? The president does not have the authority to suspend the Constitution and ignore law. I don't care what Lincoln or FDR did, it doesn't justify the actions of president Bush. You might remember a guy named Nixon. See... he tried that wiretapping crap too, and said he could do it because he was the president. Remember how that one worked out? The president doesn't have unlimited powers during war. And for the record. Say it with me...WE'RE NOT LEGALLY AT WAR.

And for the record, putting Japanese citizens in "internment" camps because they were Japanese was just plain wrong. There is no excuse for that, and it shows you what racism was like in the 1940s. And the Lincoln thing I never knew about, but if that's true, it's not right.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They granted military power to the president. When will that get through your head? The president does not have the authority to suspend the Constitution and ignore law. I don't care what Lincoln or FDR did, it doesn't justify the actions of president Bush. You might remember a guy named Nixon. See... he tried that wiretapping crap too, and said he could do it because he was the president. Remember how that one worked out? The president doesn't have unlimited powers during war. And for the record. Say it with me...WE'RE NOT LEGALLY AT WAR.

And for the record, putting Japanese citizens in "internment" camps because they were Japanese was just plain wrong. There is no excuse for that, and it shows you what racism was like in the 1940s. And the Lincoln thing I never knew about, but if that's true, it's not right.

Intelligence agencies; such as, the NSA and CIA are under presidential authority and are covered under the inherent war powers of the president. During war time the Intelligence community are used as an extension of the military. Besides that fact where did 9-11 take place again? Oh ya on U.S. soil so wouldn't stand to reason that to find the terrorists it would be wise to look where they might be?

 

[aps]

This is where you fall short on your usual anti-government rhetoric, and where lawyers, much more intelligent, and knowledgable then you and I, have come to the conclusion that the president was well with-in his executive powers to act accordingly.

Deegan, let's not pretend that lawyers, much more intelligent and knowledgeable than you and I, haven't come to the opposite conclusion as well. It is, at a minimum, arguable whether Bush had the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping. You choose to accord more probative value the opinions that support he had the authority. Others, such as myself, have chosen the other side's position. Both sides have intelligent lawyers and experts in this area of law speaking for their position, in case you didn't know. If he was so well within his powers, this issue would have been dismissed already.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes but the inherent war powers of the president take precedent. Congress granted those war powers in the Joint Resolution of congress on September 14, 2001 in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973 and in this resolution congress stated that the president could use any means necessary to take down AlQaeda.

Your rebuttal to the assertion that the Constitution is the highest law of the land is to say that this act is a higher law.
On what grounds do you assert that this piece of legislation supersedes the Constitution?

Article II section 2 look into it.

What part of Article II in particular abrogates the Fourth Amendment?
Would you be so kind as to quote the specific language of Article II that does this?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Yea, ..86% of the democratic party leadership because THEY cannot win elections very often anymore, & hate & despise Bush because he got the last two elections!:smile:

To them Bush is a reminder of their own FAILED presidential efforts, & they are filled with Hate & Rage towards the man, & in spite of every effort with of course very willing liberal media accomplices to criminalize, impugn his character, the name calling, & idiotic conspiracy theories in an effort to destroy his presidency, ..Mr. Bush remains.

Bush is a symbol of the DNC's OWN incompetence, & crummy candidates, & as soon as the democrats can deal with giving Bush the final political death blow, ..they can then go back into denial mode, & pretend to be something that they are not.

Why getting rid of President Bush through impeachment, & disgrace is even BETTER than winning elections to the democratic party!:2razz:

In the meantime, & at present what does the democratic party leadership have to offer besides resume's of long past election losses, & an inspiring effort, & lust to destroy Bush at any cost?

Well, ...nothing,..absolutely nothing & still remain SOL.

 

[aps]

Yea, ..86% of the democratic party leadership because THEY cannot win elections very often anymore, & hate & despise Bush because he got the last two elections!:smile:

To them Bush is a reminder of their own FAILED presidential efforts, & they are filled with Hate & Rage towards the man, & in spite of every effort with of course very willing liberal media accomplices to criminalize, impugn his character, the name calling, & idiotic conspiracy theories in an effort to destroy his presidency, ..Mr. Bush remains.

Bush is a symbol of the DNC's OWN incompetence, & crummy candidates.

Why getting rid of President Bush through impeachment, & disgrace is even BETTER than winning elections to the democratic party!:2razz:

In the meantime, & at present what does the democratic party leadership have to offer besides resume's of long past election losses, & an inspiring effort, & lust to destroy Bush at any cost?

Well, ...nothing,..absolutely nothing & still remain SOL.

Hiya, Stu. I was heartbroken when Bush won re-election. I have never cried over an election until then. However, had he lost, I wouldn't be having the enjoyment of watching the following:

- him run all over the country touting Social Security reform and having it flop;

- his credibility plummet;

- the people he appoints to high-level positions fail at their jobs;

- getting failing grades by the 9-11 Commission on how well he has implimented their recommendations;

- people working in the White House get indicted;

- Cindy Sheehan start a war movement right outside his house;

- Scott McClellan making a fool of himself and this administration in stating that anyone involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name would not longer be working in that administration and clearly not meaning it;

- him having to defend his actions, whether it be about invading Iraq, leaking classified information, conducing warrantless surveillances, or caring enough about the po' folk in Louisiana......;

and the list goes on. So boy-o-boy am I happy that he won re-election. :lol:

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Hiya, Stu. I was heartbroken when Bush won re-election. I have never cried over an election until then. However, had he lost, I wouldn't be having the enjoyment of watching the following:

- him run all over the country touting Social Security reform and having it flop;

- his credibility plummet;

- the people he appoints to high-level positions fail at their jobs;

- getting failing grades by the 9-11 Commission on how well he has implimented their recommendations;

- people working in the White House get indicted;

- Cindy Sheehan start a war movement right outside his house;

- Scott McClellan making a fool of himself and this administration in stating that anyone involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name would not longer be working in that administration and clearly not meaning it;

- him having to defend his actions, whether it be about invading Iraq, leaking classified information, conducing warrantless surveillances, or caring enough about the po' folk in Louisiana......;

and the list goes on. So boy-o-boy am I happy that he won re-election. :lol:

Yes, ..BUT you must understand it is the media that creates the controversy in many of the cases.

Would you like me to list ALL the failings, corruption scandals, & the like of the Clinton years?

It will far outweigh Bush's tenure at the helm.

I'm very happy that you are happy, ..but will you be happy when the democrats lose again in 08'?

That is the road they are heading, & they do not even realize it.

 

[aps]

Yes, ..BUT you must understand it is the media that creates the controversy in many of the cases.

Would you like me to list ALL the failings, corruption scandals, & the like of the Clinton years?

It will far outweigh Bush's tenure at the helm.

I'm very happy that you are happy, ..but will you be happy when the democrats lose again in 08'?

That is the road they are heading, & they do not even realize it.

Why o why is Clinton brought up when the issue is about Bush winning re-election? Clinton has NOTHING to do with your commentary or mine. Ah, but I see why you want to talk about him, because you have no good defense to the problems Bush has encountered.

If we lose in 08, we lose in 08. I'll be too busy celebrating Bush's depature to be as devastated as I was in November 2004.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Why o why is Clinton brought up when the issue is about Bush winning re-election? Clinton has NOTHING to do with your commentary or mine. Ah, but I see why you want to talk about him, because you have no good defense to the problems Bush has encountered.

If we lose in 08, we lose in 08. I'll be too busy celebrating Bush's depature to be as devastated as I was in November 2004.

You are a very smart intelligent man!:2wave:

 

[aps]

You are a very smart intelligent man!:2wave:

Stu, I am a w-o-m-a-n.