« Great inaugurals: Franklin D. Roosevelt | Main | Definitions »
January 20, 2005
Begin the impeachment
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." - The U.S. Constitution.
After 9/11, Congress passed the "War Powers Act." It said:
“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.”
Bush was asked in January 2003 if there was a link between the Hussein government and 9/11. He replied: “I can't make that claim.”
The invasion of Iraq was illegal. You can read more about Bush's law-breaking here. You can sign a petition to impeach here. And you can really get the ball rolling by contacting your congressperson, and stumping for them to take action.
Lying about fellatio; lying about WMDs and 9/11? Both are lying. Both should receive the same response: impeachment.
Posted By John Christian Plummer | January 20, 2005 11:59 AM | DIGG ME!
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bobcesca.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-tb.cgi/157
Comments
if the constitution was not amended to give the president authority to declare war (the power for which is congress's alone via article i and the 10th amendment), then the iraq war was illegal regardless of anything any branch of the federal government said. i don't recall a recent constitutional amendment. of course, a mildly leftist site isn't exactly on high ground when talking about following the US constitution. (i.e., might wanna not mention it.) BTW, the illegal war powers act wasn't passed after 9/11; it was invoked. regardless, under the present constitution congress may not legally delegate its sole authority to declare war.
there was one member of congress who insisted on the record that congress follow the constitution. he was rejected, and congress voted to bow to the emperor bush -- exactly what the framers warned against.
according to your post, all who voted in violation of the constitution on this matter must be impeached. the lists are here and here. count me in!
Posted by: charley hardman ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.bobcesca.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 20, 2005 01:40 PM
Count me in, too, Charley. On the "left" side of the aisle, let's start with Joe Lieberman.
But I don't follow one point: why can't a mildly leftist site talk about following the US Constitution?
Posted by: Plummer at January 21, 2005 01:24 PM
that's good news, john!
a leftist site can talk about the constitution, but it's mostly hollow and hypocritical -- same as with a modern rightie site. need examples? how much time ya got? at least 90% of what both sides advocate and support is clearly barred by the constitution. the constitution isn't what some robed nazgul say it is; it is what it is. i can read. you can read. most of us can read. for example, i don't need a blowhard to "interpret" the phrase "congress shall make no law...". do you? any interpretation of the first amendment that results in congress making some law respecting those things listed... well, it's damned unconstitutional, dontcha think? "no law" means exactly that. we can start there.
okay, i'll stop. i could yap about this travesty for hours. and have.
Posted by: charley hardman at January 21, 2005 09:51 PM
