Reply #5: Let's go through this. [View All]

[Lone Pawn]

Re-assert. When was that first asserted? Never mind, it's a useless question.

Nonetheless, it's obvious we're at an impasse. I have one actual question for you, though. Suppose we're arguing this in front of the Supreme Court when the motion to impeach is challenged. Say for kicks that I'm the Republican and you're the Democrat. I give my reading, you give yours. In order to gain the go-ahead for impeachment, you need to conclusively prove that there is no ambiguity in the document--that is to say, you need to prove that there is no Earthly way that my reading could possibly be correct.

I present as evidence the long American history of full free speech, and point that every reading that ever allowed restrictions of speech--and all Bush has done is speak--has been later invalidated. I mention that the Constitution has at its healthiest been read as a document in which an individual is granted every freedom that could be read from it, and in a case in where two readings--both equally possible--exist, one forbidding a citizen the right to speak against the validity of debt and one still alowing him that right, it makes more sense to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I next mention that in every case in which the Constitution restricts, it either specifically forbids the federal government from passing such-and-such a law, or mentions that such-and-such a thing would now be permissible or forbidden, and congress has right to pass a law forbidding it. Since it nowhere mentions any branch of office disallowed from officially questioning debt, it can only be assumed under your reading that debt is not to be questioned by any citizen. However, since it does not warrant Congress the ability to enforce it, it would then be a meaningless proviso. It doesn't square. Moreover, were it to allow Congress to enforce this provision, it would conflict with the First Amendment, ambiguity would exist, and prosecution would not follow.

Moreover, if there is no federal law against a President's action, but it is not within the bounds of the Constitution, the action which is then taken is an order from the court to cease and desist, and reverse the action if at all possible. If he fails to comply with a court order, then he is breaking the law and can be impeached. No law has yet been broken, and so this impeachment motion is invalid.