• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

California Becomes Second State to Introduce Bush Impeachment (1 Viewer)

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Illinois and California state legislatures have recent bills introduced that if passed, will force the House of Representatives to formally address the issue of impeachment in committee. With no guarantee as to what the House will do, this is a very, very big step towards impeaching our lawless President.
April 24, 2006

California Becomes Second State to Introduce Bush Impeachment

By David Swanson


Joining Illinois, California has become the second state in which a proposal to impeach President Bush has been introduced in the state legislature. And this one includes Cheney as well.

California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles (where the LA Times has now called for Cheney's resignation) has submitted amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. The amendments reference Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature.

The resolution, in the words of Koretz's press release, "bases the call for impeachment upon the Bush Administration intentionally misleading the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives and casualties; exceeding constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq; exceeding constitutional authority by Federalizing the National Guard; conspiring to torture prisoners in violation of the 'Federal Torture Act' and indicating intent to continue such actions; spying on American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Agency Surveillance Act; leaking and covering up the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, and holding American citizens without charge or trial."

Koretz submitted amendments gutting AJR No. 39, a resolution unrelated to impeachment, to the Assembly Rules Committee. The Rules Committee may take up the bill this week for referral, allowing him to formally introduce the amended resolution.

AJR 39 is a bill introduced in January by Koretz calling for a moratorium on depleted uranium:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104_introduced.html

"At both the state and national levels," Koretz said, "we will be paying for the Bush Administration's illegal actions and terrible lack of judgment and competence for decades—not only in the billions of dollars wasted on the war and welfare for the rich, but in the worldwide loss of respect for America and Americans. Bush and Cheney must be impeached and removed from office before they undertake even deadlier misdeeds, such as the use of nuclear weapons. There are no bounds to their willingness to ignore the Constitution and world opinion—we can't afford to wait for the next disaster and hope that we can survive it."


http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pr...nera_david_sw_060424_california_becomes_s.htm
It's also poetic justice for all of those who despise OP-Ed's as a source of factual information. So whether you like it or not, Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39 (California) and Illinois HJR0125, are actual, verifiable facts.

Here's the Illinois link:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060422_bush_impeachment___t.htm
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Yes, let's roll. After six years of belly-aching about impeachment, someone please start the proceedings. Either that or shut up about it.

OpEdNews. Isn't that an Oxymoron?
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

As good as it sounds, they probably need to get a majority of the states to follow. Would the red states do this? I think not
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Being that state legislators have no power at all to impeach a president, it would seem that this is a waist of the California Legislators time and that states taxpayers money.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

So what's it going to be? Are we going to demand the Bush impeachment or make excuses about why it will never happen? Either the left needs to proceed with the process or stop making lame apologies about red states or wasting California's time.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Billo_Really said:
Illinois and California state legislatures have recent bills introduced that if passed, will force the House of Representatives to formally address the issue of impeachment in committee.
Explan, in specific terms, how a state law can force the US House of Representatives to do anything.


With no guarantee as to what the House will do, this is a very, very big step towards impeaching our lawless President.
I have an idea:
Hold your breath until it happens.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Goobieman said:
Explan, in specific terms, how a state law can force the US House of Representatives to do anything.
Here's the link:
Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives. Go to page 13 of the .pdf, it states:
"In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: (snip) by chrges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III,2469) or Territory (III,2487),"
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

shuamort said:

Well, OK...
But that doesnt necessitate that the House is -forced- to take up the issue.

And in any event, the house can change the rules. Billo made it sound like the House had no choice in the matter, when clearly it does.

(Personally, I think he's so desperate to see an impeachment, he'd sell his kids to get it, but that's another issue.)
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Dude, :shock:

You guys have a SERIOUS fixation/issue with 'Impeachment' and trying to get back at the GOP for Clinton getting busted for felonious perjury and witness tampering!

This documented case has already been proven by Feingold actually, and AMAZINGLY enough, introducing legislation calling for a President to be Censured for conducting a LEGAL program designed to fight the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 that he not only had every right to do but a program that had been used by numerous Presidents in the past! Feingold even brought Clinton up in his speech introducing his legislation on the floor, saying that 'what Bush was doing was even worse that what Clinton was Impeached for'....except that Clintion was Impeached for illegal perjury and witness tampering while Feingold's legislation dealt with a legal program! The Dems showed their hand then that they were so desperate to get 'payback' that they would call for his Impeachment for something not even illegal! :lamo

You guys need to just let it go! There have been only 3 Presidents Impeached in U.S. history, and I can see where all 3 having been Democrats is enough to drive you over the edge, but you just have to move past it and get on with your lives. Seek serious psychiatric help...especially DEAN! :sick:

It was humerous at 1st, but now.....NOW it's just plain SAD! :sigh:
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Well, OK...
But that doesnt necessitate that the House is -forced- to take up the issue.

And in any event, the house can change the rules. Billo made it sound like the House had no choice in the matter, when clearly it does.

(Personally, I think he's so desperate to see an impeachment, he'd sell his kids to get it, but that's another issue.)
Do you ever think before you speak?

Originally posted by billo "...making it sound like the House had no choice..." :
With no guarantee as to what the House will do,
I don't think you can see the forest through the trees sometimes. Because even after Shuamort pointed you to the relevant part of the document, you just keep going and going and going...

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Well, OK...
But that doesnt necessitate that the House is -forced- to take up the issue.

And in any event, the house can change the rules. Billo made it sound like the House had no choice in the matter, when clearly it does.

(Personally, I think he's so desperate to see an impeachment, he'd sell his kids to get it, but that's another issue.)
So here we go again. What does "...supersede other business..." mean?

JEFFERSON’S MANUAL
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the
House and at once supersedes business otherwise in
order under the rules governing the order of business

(III, 2045–2048; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294;
Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; see Procedure,
ch. 14, sec. 1–5). It may not even be superseded by an election case,
One last thing, anyone that likes to have their cake and eat it too, I am their worst nightmare! Remember that.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Billo_Really said:
Do you ever think before you speak?
You mean - like you?

I don't think you can see the forest through the trees sometimes. Because even after Shuamort pointed you to the relevant part of the document, you just keep going and going and going...
So here we go again. What does "...supersede other business..." mean?

Apparently, and probably willfully, you fail to understand the underlying point.

You're quoting House rules.
The House can change the rules any time it wants.
That being the case, the house is "forced" to take the matter under consideration IF the house lets itself be "forced".

There's no -constitutional- requirement that the House take up the issue, especially given that it would be "forced" to respond to a -state- law.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

I don't know....I think Bush should be FORCED to respond to Feingold's charge that the President is running a Classified LEGAL program designed to counter the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11! Yes, sir, mister - He has some explaining to do! He has to explain why the Democrats should not push for IMMEDIATE Impeachment procedings for his legal, legitimate dealings as President! :rofl The NERVE of that guy!:lol:
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Goobieman said:
You're quoting House rules.
The House can change the rules any time it wants.
That being the case, the house is "forced" to take the matter under consideration IF the house lets itself be "forced".


He does have a valid point....anyone remember this:

"House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

tecoyah said:
He does have a valid point....anyone remember this:

"House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html

The GOP rule in question was a self-imposed ethics rule designed to help govern itself. It was a good rule passed with a good intent. The problem, exposed by the Democrats, with the rule is that it opened the door for others (the Democrats) to launch false allegations against GOP members causing them to be forced to step down while the investigations into the accusations were conducted.

It took 13 attempts before the Democratic party DA was able to find a politically-biased judge to finally up-hold the accusation and issue an indictment. So far, the conspiracy charge against DeLay was thrown out, only 1 more accusation remains.

It may very well end up that Delay is found innocent of all charges, that the accusations against him are/were totally bogus.....but the damage is done! The Democrats took down another GOP using the GOP's own rule designed to govern itself. you think the Democrats would try to hold themselves accountable the way the GOP had, by instituting such a rule? NO WAY! Why? Because, as the Democrats demonstrated, all your opponent has to do to remove you from your positon is to launch enough false allegations at you that at least 1 Indictment comes out of it...and <wham>, you're gone until you have your day in court and prove you are innocent. By that time, as I pointed out, the damage is done! So of course the GOP was forced to abandon the rule in light of the Dems using it to eliminate their leadership/members through its manipulation/bastardization.

Just like in the Feingold legislation, the Democrats' SOP is to launch false accusations, smear campaigns, and attempt to have you tried in the court of public opinion. Most of the time thay launch claims that you should be BREAKING the law. In Feingold's case, he demanded Bush be punished for FOLLOWING it! :rofl
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Bumped for response.

KCConservative said:
So what's it going to be? Are we going to demand the Bush impeachment or make excuses about why it will never happen? Either the left needs to proceed with the process or stop making lame apologies about red states or wasting California's time.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Just like in the Feingold legislation, the Democrats' SOP is to launch false accusations, smear campaigns, and attempt to have you tried in the court of public opinion.

Sounds to me like Karl Rove has gone to work for the other side! Say it ain't so! :shock:
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Captain America said:
Sounds to me like Karl Rove has gone to work for the other side! Say it ain't so! :shock:
:lol: The other side would sell their own mothers for Rove. The six year jealous streak is proof of that.
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

KCConservative said:
:lol: The other side would sell their own mothers for Rove. The six year jealous streak is proof of that.

As long as the DNC is under the false illusion that elections can be won by taking the highground, they will continue to lose them.

America wants controversy. We are a "National Enquirer" populus. Sticking with the issues and playing fair is booooooooring.........

We complain about the Coulters, O'Reilly's, Moores and Limbaughs yet due to our lack of interest in benign, "tell it like it is" type of reporting, those guy's ratings keeps them all fat.

They need to get someone like Rove with a lot of balls and no conscience.

Reminds me of a joke (edited for political correctness) :

"Just like a democrat to bring a knife to a gunfight."
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

They need to get someone like Rove with a lot of balls and no conscience.
Do you mean someone like Howard Dean??
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Captain America said:
As long as the DNC is under the false illusion that elections can be won by taking the highground, they will continue to lose them.

Its not so much them 'taking the higher ground' that kills them as much as it is America seeing through their attempt to present that image - their hypocrisy keeps shining through! Pelosi's public accusations against DeLay for a Lobbyist-funded trip only to have the follow-up investigation expose her as being one of the biggest offenders of that in Washington is a Prime Example. Her comments right after ("You have to treat Dems different from GOP because THEY are the criminals...") just added fuel to the fire!

Captain America said:
America wants controversy. We are a "National Enquirer" populus. Sticking with the issues and playing fair is booooooooring.........
I am not sure I agree. The last 2 elections were probably the nastiest this country has ever had, and people got sick and tired of it from BOTH sides! Polls show (and we all know how much stock the Dems put in polls) that Americans are not comfortable with how we slander and attack our Presidents today. There was a time when you were respectful when talking about ANY President. We now have people publicly comoparing our Presidents to Genetalia! Politics has gone too far, and people would rather hear how a Candidate is going to help and solve problems than bash each other & fling mud.

Guys like Dean, who every major Dem Politician has backed away from, has been sent out front like some rabid dog to attack the GOP, say as much outlandish controversial stuff he can, and instead of helping, I think he is making the DNC look foolish! Dems say, 'Dean doesn't speak for me.' Then why do you still have him out there as the Chairman of the DNC?! So-called Dem Party leaders like Dean, Kerry, & Durbin give a bad light to the DNC because they attack our troops, attack the President, and engage in dirty politics/mud-slinging while saying the DNC has no platform or ideas and doesn't have to have one right now (as Dean said several months ago when he pointed out that all the DNC needs to do right now is criticize the Pres and the GOP.)!

I think the American people are tired of that and demand ideas and answers. The reason bush's numbers are down is befcause, for 1, he isn't giving the American people any ideas or answers on Immigration, choosing instead to ignore the problem. While millions of Mexicans are marching in our streets raising Mexican flags and saying how they are here to take Mexican Land back, Bushg was saying he would veto any plan that did not call for Amnesty/nationalizing the millions of illegals in this country! THAT is not the idea or answers the American people want......but while Bush is giving the people ideas and answers (just the wrong ones), at least he is giving them ideas and answers! They are getting NOTHING from the Democrats except more mud-slinging and dirty politics, like Feingold's attempt to censure Bush for a LEGAL program! :roll:

People are hungry for leadership going in the right direction. The people are getting leadership from Bush and the GOP, but they just don't necessarily like where it is going or the message they are getting right now. But the GOP and Bush are the only ones offering any leadership, guidance, or direction for the country right now.

You think the voters will vote for people who are trying to lead but are having problems doing it or for the politicians who sat off to the side, watched things 'going to he!! in a hand-basket' but did nothing?

As the old saying goes, "Lead, follow, or get the h@ll out of the way!" So far the Dems have not lead, have not followed, and are just standing in the way while pointing fingers!
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

As the old saying goes, "Lead, follow, or get the h@ll out of the way!" So far the Dems have not lead, have not followed, and are just standing in the way while pointing fingers!

True dat!

Myself, I really could care less what the Dem's do. Bunch o' losers. I have faith that after we get rid of the Bozo's in Washington, the GOP will return back to the favor of the people. America has made it's voice LOUD AND CLEAR that this is NOT the GOP we want in Washington. Bush and his minions will soon just be a bad memory. Neocon and Religious Right agendas will a thing of the past.

If you want to take a peek at the ol' style GOP we all know and love, look up towards New Hampshire. There's the future. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIVACY_LICENSES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

Originally posted by Gooberman:
Apparently, and probably willfully, you fail to understand the underlying point.

You're quoting House rules.
The House can change the rules any time it wants.
That being the case, the house is "forced" to take the matter under consideration IF the house lets itself be "forced".

There's no -constitutional- requirement that the House take up the issue, especially given that it would be "forced" to respond to a -state- law.
Why do you argue in favor of the government breaking the law? Or at the very least, being able to do whatever they want without any checks or balances? If you think this is an unfair assessment, then tell me, where do you draw the line?
 
Re: Bush Impeachment more real than WMD's in Iraq

easyt65 said:
Because, as the Democrats demonstrated, all your opponent has to do to remove you from your positon is to launch enough false allegations at you that at least 1 Indictment comes out of it...and <wham>, you're gone until you have your day in court and prove you are innocent.
That's BS. If one indictment sticks, then that person was guilty of at least that. If they're not guilty, then 100 indictments wouldn't stick. You make it sound like they're being framed or something.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom