- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 18,930
- Reaction score
- 1,040
- Location
- HBCA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.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
Explan, in specific terms, how a state law can force the US House of Representatives to do anything.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.
I have an idea:With no guarantee as to what the House will do, this is a very, very big step towards impeaching our lawless President.
Here's the link:Goobieman said:Explan, in specific terms, how a state law can force the US House of Representatives to do anything.
"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),"
shuamort said: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:
shuamort said: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:
Do you ever think before you speak?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.)
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 billo "...making it sound like the House had no choice..." :
With no guarantee as to what the House will do,
So here we go again. What does "...supersede other business..." mean?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.)
One last thing, anyone that likes to have their cake and eat it too, I am their worst nightmare! Remember that.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,
You mean - like you?Billo_Really said:Do you ever think before you speak?
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?
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".
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
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.
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.
:lol: The other side would sell their own mothers for Rove. The six year jealous streak is proof of that.Captain America said:Sounds to me like Karl Rove has gone to work for the other side! Say it ain't so! :shock:
KCConservative said::lol: The other side would sell their own mothers for Rove. The six year jealous streak is proof of that.
Do you mean someone like Howard Dean??They need to get someone like Rove with a lot of balls and no conscience.
Gill said:Do you mean someone like Howard Dean??
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.
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.Captain America said:America wants controversy. We are a "National Enquirer" populus. Sticking with the issues and playing fair is booooooooring.........
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!
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?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.
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.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.
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?