Campaign Wants Inquiry of Impeachable Offenses

MyThatIsABigProbe,

I agree that is the initial reason for bringing it in but nothing in it stops is being used in this instance.

All that is required is for Congress to vote to define a body to look into this.

That body to declare the President unfit to continue to hold office.

Congress to ratify that decision.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by thematrix
Dunno if the oath requires him/her to speak the truth. But its worth researching.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By simply introducing & pushing forward the Patriot Act without giving Congress appropriate time to read & debate it (Which in itself violates a lot of the Constitution itself), Bush has already violated that oath. If nothing else, this alone should be held as an impeachable offense.

But then, what do you expect of the very first President in American history who saw fit to Pardon himself for all crimes he may have committed before he stepped into Office?


Another point to bring up...
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Isn't Gee Dubya officially sanctioned as a Knight by the Crown of England? Makes you wonder who he really serves, doesn't it?

Originally posted by twitchy
Regardless of what party you support or who wins, this kind of crap has got to go!

Gee, I wrote something to this effect almost two years ago, right here.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
The Merchant Class buys the loyalty of any & all candidates they can, so that it doesn't matter who wins an election because they're all under the control of the Merchant Class. There is no longer a "two-party" system in the US because they both are owned by the "Merchant Class Party".

See the similarity?

Twitchy, for what you posted on 5-6-2005 at 08:10 (Post Number: 1436484) I saw such complete & thorough coverage, I simply had to give you the Way Above vote. I just wish I had time to coorelate everything I run across in such concise format.

MD,

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
But then, what do you expect of the very first President in American history who saw fit to Pardon himself for all crimes he may have committed before he stepped into Office?

Is this true???? Do you have a link????

Cheers

BHR

p.s. It is not unusual for Americans to be given knighthoods by our Queen. They are classed as honorary from the US point of view. I have to ask though, what was his given for?

He did say that he and his administration would not be held accountable for anything that happens in Iraq or Afghanistan, I remember that day well. But as far as pardoning, I don't know about that one. I don't think he really needs one, the Bush regime has a long history of staying out of trouble, even when the blood is still drying on their hands. Prescott was elected to Congress not a decade after he was found to be funding Nazi Germany in both the Steel and Pharmaceutical Industries. Trading with the enemy is a long proud Bush tradition that continues to this day.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Is this true???? Do you have a link????

I had it & lost it...When I can find it again, I'll post it here.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
p.s. It is not unusual for Americans to be given knighthoods by our Queen. They are classed as honorary from the US point of view.

Did the Constitutional Clause specify a difference between "honorary" or any other permutation? No, it forbids it entirely unless the President in question has the permission of Congress...Does Bushy-boy have Congressional permission? I haven't been able to find out about that yet...Anyone else care to try also?

i'm new here but i have an opinion
this irks me more than his lying
bush is a very religiouse man.. and well i'm not... don't get me wrong.. i still beleive but i want to uphold the seperation of church and state law. i have no prejudice, no racism. my step mom is an african-amercan, and im actually part of the hispanic family next door.
bush was (maybe still is) trying to get an ammendmant made illegalizing gay marriages because his religion forbids it. i'm sry but that alone (bringing his religion into gvmt.) and breakin the seperation laws is enough to impeach yes?

anyway.. America is "the mixing pot" of religions... races... etc. now bush is pretty much trying to sift out the right of the minorities. how would this be different than saying that all hispanics are now not allowed to have kids? is it only dif because it is affecting a larger minority? it sholdn't be!
bush should be impeached for bringing his religion into govmt and upsetting the balance! BUSH:

MidnightDestroyer,

Did you ever come across a link to show that Bush had pardoned himself upon gaining the Presidency?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by Bout Time
THere is more than enough to warrant impeachment hearings...and it's not all revolveing around the pre-war documented fabrication of Intel. The post invasion Ocupational Government of Paul Bremer signed contracts & lost millions....all with zero oversight by the Legislative Branch which is in charge of that spending.

Amen brother. Conflicts of interest, too, all over the place.

The Democrats WERE honorable vis a vis Clinton - the impeachment proceedings never would have moved forward without them.
Will Republicans do the same? History says no, they'll stonewall & coddle & destroy records or change procedures at every turn. Or have you not heard the name Tom DeLay before?

I was one of those Republicans who was so pissed off that Senate Republicans let Clinton off the hook.. and I also believe that it was farcical beyond belief. There were other much deeper and nefarious Clinton dealings that could have landed him in prison. The reason that stuff never got any traction/play is b/c it would have implicated Bush the first (Iran Contra). At any rate, I have never seen such blatant hypocrisy in all my life. The leadership and rank & file of today's GOP is absolutely morally bankrupt.