Comments on: Will Bush Be Impeached Soon?

By: dtlincoln

dtlincoln — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:26:34 +0000

Its too late to state that we are at the edge of a world abyss and to impeach Bush is too risky or dangerous. In fact, I believe strongly, that this would send a message to the entire world that the American people want nothing to do with this kind of leadership - it might save us - and that we apologize for bringing this goon and his henchmen into office - and that we intend to take more responsibility as citizens in the future to prevent liars, thugs, war mongers, and greedy capitalists from entering our great halls of freedom and justice. This Administration must stop and soon - we cannot wait until the election - they are already planning to hit Iran and Syria - we must openly punish this man NOW and his administration for lying to the world. Then perhaps the world will honor us again for taking the risk, courage, to do right.

By: mcconnell

mcconnell — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:28:54 +0000

Doh!

*hitting my head on the wall*

Thanks!

Ouch.

By: Noelle

Noelle — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:25:26 +0000

This blog post is old. It’s from April 24th, which is when Bobby posted it.

By: mcconnell

mcconnell — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:13:15 +0000

Bump

Answers, please.

By: mcconnell

mcconnell — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:18:23 +0000

by the way, how come “Will Bush be Impeached Soon” blog not visible in the DeafDC home webpage?http://www.deafdc.com/

Somebody needs to be a bit honest around here.

By: mcconnell

mcconnell — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:43:05 +0000

I completely forgot to add this in my initial response about Bobby’s comment on the Illinois impeachment attempt.

Ahem.

The bill you are referring to, Bobby was referred to the House Rules Committee where it is *DEAD*. Dead…dead…dead!

It was the simple fact that the Illinois House refused to get involved with these moonbats’ schemes on the House floor. Why? Well, if you read carefully the US House Rules, a state vote on an impeachment resolution does not bind the House of Representatives to:

(1) investigate whether to procede, or

(2) refer it to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.

The U.S. House Rules simply state that the House will consider such a request from a state, or they can simply ignore it.

What you don’t understand Bobby is that the House of Representatives are elected directly by the people, and the collective body is separate from the States, who have no jurisdiction over the Federal government. Or even in the hope to try and somehow overthow Bush with their actions. Laughably so, no, they cannot.

But let me ask you a question. If the Illinois state legislators who introduced this resolution/bill would they be at risk for FEDERAL charges under 18 USC 2381 (treason) or 18 USC 2385 (attempting to overthrow the Federal government) for the simple act of introducing a bill just to try oust the elected President of the United States coming from a state government to a Federal government?

Something for you to chew on.

By: mcconnell

mcconnell — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:52:38 +0000

where’s !@#%@# editing button?

By: Safe, not sorry

Safe, not sorry — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:19:32 +0000

The world of today is vastly different than the world that existed at the time the Constitution was written. Our revered Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, the Internet Age, globalization, and international diplomatic entities such as the United Nations. I’m strongly in support of civil liberties — for everyone. That may possibly involve curtailing someone’s liberty to drop a nuclear bomb on my country, or commit crimes against my person or property. Americans don’t have a monopoly on democracy, freedom, or moral justice. As a military superpower, it behooves us as American citizens to use our powers judiciously. The debate is not whether we should, but how to do it. Ben Franklin never had to live with a ticking Doomsday clock that was minutes from world destruction. The writers of the constitution dealt with religious oppression, yes, but not irrational fanatics who had anthrax, ricin, botulism, and other horrors at their disposal. I would not say that all our government representatives are nice people or always do the right thing. The U.S. government has wronged individuals, groups, and nations. That’s a fact. I’m saying there’s a happy middle ground between totalitarianism and anarchy. Part of our responsibilities as citizens is to keep a watchful eye on our government to make sure their power is not abused or corrupted.

By: Noelle

Noelle — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:58:36 +0000

then you are dishonoring what it means to be an American—the sanctity of civil liberties that belong to us as Americans under the United States Constitution.

By: Safe, not sorry

Safe, not sorry — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:44:50 +0000

So, Noelle, you’re saying it’s an either/or situation? Everyone, from individuals to nations, must have total liberty and freedom to do as they please without regard to the rights of others? For example, in the Balkans, we should be hands-off and let the people who live there kill each other? Same as in Darfur? In my mind, liberty and freedom are not absolutes. There are shades of gray and a variety of situations in which more or less liberty is appropriate. I would suggest to Ben Franklin that both liberty and safety are illusions.