changintimes
New member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
changintimes said:Does Alito getting into The Supreme Court mean we will never be able to impeach Bush? Even if we get a majority in the 2006 elections?
Any guilty decision would just bounce to The Supreme Court, and Alito would presumably help Bush stay in power and The Supreme Court would slap down any impeachment decision.
Could this be the Bush Administration's plan?
Kandahar said:How would a guilty decision "bounce to the Supreme Court"? Are you reading the same US Constitution that I'm reading?
changintimes said:remember how bush first got into office?
by a supreme court ruling, for the 2000 election,
changintimes said:thanks sweetie,
so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?
and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
changintimes said:remember how bush first got into office?
by a supreme court ruling, for the 2000 election,
changintimes said:Does Alito getting into The Supreme Court mean we will never be able to impeach Bush? Even if we get a majority in the 2006 elections?
Any guilty decision would just bounce to The Supreme Court, and Alito would presumably help Bush stay in power and The Supreme Court would slap down any impeachment decision.
Could this be the Bush Administration's plan?
changintimes said:thanks sweetie,
so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?
and the elections were stolen,
how many republican scandles must there be before you realize...............
Navy Pride said:In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
changintimes said:thanks sweetie,
so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?
and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
Navy Pride said:In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
Oh yes he did. It's called perjury.Kandahar said:No, in order to be impeached the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach you. You certainly don't have to commit a crime.
PS Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.
changintimes said:this thread is so warped to the right i really feel it could be controlled by the bush administration, kind of like fox,
money is the bottom line here, isn't it, not people,
I'm very comfortable in stating that I am one of the most liberal posters in this community BUT your entire premise of this thread is wrong, completely. The Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with the Impeachment Process other than the Chief Justice would be the presiding judge should Bush be impeached and stand trial in the Senate.changintimes said:thanks sweetie,
so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?
and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
Typical diversion for you, again! This thread has nothing to do with judging Bush and has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton...why must you divert every damn thread with your one line posts? How hard is it to stay on topic?????:roll:Navy Pride said:In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
Amazing that people don't know the rules of impeachment! You're not close to the truth...Let's set the record striaght!Stinger said:Actually you don't have to commit a crime. The Congress can pretty much impeach a President for anything they can muster the votes for, but it's a pretty high bar requiring a 3/4 vote.
What! Are you kidding me! This is totally ridiculous! Incredible!Stinger said:And then they have to face the voters afterwards so they better not do it lightly. Misdeameanor, back in the days the constitution was written, meant nothing more than misbehavior. So for instance say a President decides he just doesn't want to go to work anymore and heads off to Monoco to lead the good life. Won't take calls won't do his job, congress can impeach him for misdeameanors.
26 X World Champs said:Amazing that people don't know the rules of impeachment! You're not close to the truth...Let's set the record striaght!
The House can impeach the President with a MAJORITY vote,
not 3/4 vote! Then The Senate has a trial presided over by The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. To convict a 2/3 majority is needed and then the President is removed from office. Your 3/4 thing is wrong.
What! Are you kidding me! This is totally ridiculous! Incredible!
with all due respect...you're really stretching here. You wrote that if Bush decided to chainsaw shrub for the rest of his term and did nothing else he could be impeached. I say that is like saying if he was caught stealing gum from a candy store he could be impeached...except that your and my two scenarios would never happen so it's a foolish statement, sorry.Stinger said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And then they have to face the voters afterwards so they better not do it lightly. Misdeameanor, back in the days the constitution was written, meant nothing more than misbehavior. So for instance say a President decides he just doesn't want to go to work anymore and heads off to Monoco to lead the good life. Won't take calls won't do his job, congress can impeach him for misdeameanors.
No that is fact. It is surprising how many come to this not knowing that historical fact. For instance where in Art. X against Johnson the charge is the he spoke disparagingly about the congress and did so too loudly.
Actually this is exactly what you wrote:Stinger said:I was speaking of the high bar for removal, not the impeachment vote
To again clarify, IMPEACH means INDICT. To convict as you did later admit it is a 2/3 vote and then the President is removed. That is a CONVICTION. The IMPEACHMENT is the INDICTMENT that leads to the Senate trial and a simple majority is all that is required for an IMPEACHMENT.Stinger said:Actually you don't have to commit a crime. The Congress can pretty much impeach a President for anything they can muster the votes for, but it's a pretty high bar requiring a 3/4 vote.
changintimes said:thanks sweetie,
so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?
and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?