Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Any Legal Minds Here?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:28 PM
Original message
Any Legal Minds Here?
I have a question: although only Congress can impeach... after re-reading the Constitution, it seems that really, the people can legally call for impeachment. Is this wrong?

What does the Constitution stipulate when the Congress and Executive branch are both no longer viable bodies representing the people? Can you imagine if everyone who wanted to sue for impeachment of Congressional leaders and the President gave 1$ to the attorney who would take the case?

I know the Constitution demands revolution if the government is compromised, but conveniently, our government has made it illegal to even broach the subject. Are there no legal conduits?

Please post answers with sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. the constitution does NOT
provide for the case where both congress and the Executive branch are no longer viable bodies representing the people.


Also, the constitution doesn't "demand" revolution under any circumstances.

My source:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. You are wrong
The Constitution is very clear. Only the House can call for Impeachment. Then there is a trial in the Senate.

Under your scenario, who tries the President once he is impeached?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The impeachment bill is there (due to War Powers Act lies) and
only one House member and one Senate member need to back it, according to what I heard on the radio the other day.

But we don't have any Congressmen/women who will support it. Shame, huh ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone Pawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. If they back it, then the best that can happen--the most we'll get--
is a motion to impeach in the House. Which would disastrously fail. Bad, bad, bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Yes, that's right, the Democrats have no principles...the Repubs do. I see
it clearly now. Sometimes losing all the battles in order to win the war makes for good strategy. E V Debs never got elected, yet his agenda made the Repubs and Democrats take his policies as 'their own'. You know, the 8 hour workday, anti child-labor laws, etc., etc.

Why Gen Giap was once told that the US won every battle during the Vietnam war...to which he replied, 'yes, and that is irrelevent'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. "E V Debs never got elected"
Repeat that 100 times, with the emphasis on "never". Maybe, it will sink in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. But his policies all were : ) Write that on your blackboards 100Xs
Edited on Fri Apr-01-05 06:56 PM by EVDebs
"On Christmas Day 1921, President Warren G. Harding, a Republican, freed Debs and 23 other prisoners of conscience. Debs' socialist movement was now dead, the victim of government repression and internal factional fighting between opponents and supporters of the new Bolshevik regime in Russia. But the socialist ideal lived on, inspiring a new generation of social reformers in the 1930s who, under the banner of the New Deal, enacted most of the programs and policies called for in the Socialist Party platform of 1912. It was not the socialist commonwealth, but it was a genuine achievement—one for which Debs and his followers legitimately could claim some credit." from http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/history/history/debs.cfm

Oh, did I forget to add 'social security' to the list ? I'm sorry.

BTW, he got more than a million votes for President...campaigning from his JAIL CELL. In the same tradition, USMC Gen. Smedley D. Butler followed in his footsteps, and later prevented the overthrow of FDR (by George Bush's relatives) in "The Plot to Overthrow the White House" (see Jules Archer's book and the movie "The Plot to Overthrow FDR (Smedley D. Butler)" www.ihffilm.com/r547.html

Also remember Jesus Christ, in worldly terms, would be considered one of the biggest losers too.

Think about that...maybe YOUR idea of 'winners' and 'losers' will change.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chomskysright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Articles of Impeachment from Veterans for Peace:
Laws violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command, sufficient for impeachment


Veterans for Peace believes the following to be a partial, but sufficient, summary of relevant laws violated by President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney, arising from their decision to invade and occupy Iraq, followed by documentation for each violation. Veterans for Peace will add additional violations to this summary as they are made known by eyewitness military personnel and other credible sources.
We believe these violations constitute impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution Article II, sec. 4, and that the U.S. Congress is therefore compelled to impeach President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

I) U.S. Constitution Article VI par. 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (emphasis added)

II) War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes committing a war crime, defined as: “…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…,” punishable by being “...fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.”
III) Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
• On September 19, 2003, Coalition Provisional Authority head, Paul Bremer, enacted Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq.
• Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another’s property "without altering the substance of the thing." Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos…What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?
• In case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US Army’s Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of property." This is pretty straightforward: Bombing something does not give you the right to sell it…In a leaked memo written on March 26, British Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law."
The Nation 11/24/03 “Bring Halliburton Home” By Naomi Klein




IV) U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314
Defines the crime of aggression as “... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…”
• According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.
• International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for “individual or collective self-defense” against “armed attack...until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
• There is little debate regarding the nefarious nature of the Saddam Hussein regime, but this has never been a legal ground for invasion. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 to overthrow the Khmer Rouge—a radical communist movement even more brutal than the regime of Saddam Hussein—the United States condemned the action before the United Nations as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The United States successfully led an international effort to impose sanctions against Vietnam and insisted that the UN recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia for more than a decade after their leaders were forced out of the capital into remote jungle areas. Similarly, the United States challenged three of its closest allies—Great Britain, France, and Israel—before the United Nations in 1956 when they invaded Egypt…The Eisenhower administration insisted that international law and the UN Charter must be upheld by all nations regardless of their relations with the United States.
Foreign Policy in Focus Oct. 2002 “The Case Against a War with Iraq” www.fpif.org/papers/iraq3.html
By Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism zunes@usfca.edu

• “Kofi Annan: Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter”
The Guardian Sept. 16, 2004


V) Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
Principle VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties;
• See: IV) U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314 (above)

(b) War crimes: …murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages…
• Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports.
NY Times March 12, 2005 “Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail” By Douglas Jehl
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html?th

• At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials
NY Times March 16, 2005 “U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16abuse.html?th

• In Fallujah, 40% of the buildings were completely destroyed, 20% had major damage, and 40% had significant damage. That is 100% of the buildings in that city.
American Friends Service Committee: Correspondents' Journal 1/20/05 “The Price of Forgetting”
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/corres_journal/entries/20050120.htm

• See also: VI, sec. A) Protocol I, Art. 75, The Geneva Conventions (below)

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination…and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population…when such acts are done…in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
• "I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the (Euphrates) river."
“AP Photographer Flees Fallujah” 11/14/04 Katarina Kratovac, Associated Press Writer

• “We were tied up and beaten despite being unarmed and having only our medical instruments,” Asma Khamis al-Muhannadi, a doctor who was present during the U.S. and Iraqi National Guard raid on Fallujah General Hospital told reporters later. She said troops dragged patients from their beds and pushed them against the wall. “I was with a woman in labour, the umbilical cord had not yet been cut,” she said. “At that time, a U.S. soldier shouted at one of the (Iraqi) national guards to arrest me and tie my hands while I was helping the mother to deliver.”
Inter Press Service 12/13/04 “U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care” by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000157.php

• Kassem Mohammed Ahmed who escaped from Fallujah a little over a week ago told IPS he witnessed many atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in the city. “I watched them roll over wounded people in the street with tanks,” he said. “This happened so many times.”
• Abu Hammad said he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. “The Americans shot them with rifles from the shore,” he said. “Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their heads to show they are not fighters, they were all shot.” Hammad said he had seen elderly women carrying white flags shot by U.S. soldiers. “Even the wounded people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed.”
Inter Press Service 11/26/04 “Unusual Weapons Used in Fallujah” by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000137.php

VI) The Geneva Conventions
A) Protocol I, Article 75: “(1)…persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict…shall be treated humanely in all circumstances…(2) The following acts are and shall remain prohibited…whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons…(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault…and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.”

• The International Committee of the Red Cross reported a number of violations including:
• Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury
• Absence of notification of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their families causing distress among persons deprived of their liberty and their families
• Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information
• Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight
• Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment.
Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the treatment by Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other protected persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during arrest, Internment and Interrogation February, 2004
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/icrc_report_iraq_feb2004.pdf

• Christian Peacemaker Teams, a human rights group working in Iraq has reported abuses of both detainees and their families:
• Violent House Raids: House raids terrify Iraqi children and heap shame on Iraqi women who are pulled from their beds wearing only nightclothes.
• Health Concerns: Families have no way to inquire about the health and well-being of prisoners even when families know that their detained loved ones were injured at the time of their arrest.
• Mistreatment of Detainees: All detainees CPT spoke with reported that they were housed in overcrowded tents without proper clothes or toilet facilities.
• Theft of Property: CPT has heard many stories about Coalition forces confiscating money and property during house raids. We have not heard of any instances in which Coalition forces gave the owners receipts for confiscated property. Many people who have applied for compensation for damaged and confiscated property have not received any written proof of their application.
Report and Recommendations on Iraqi Detainees January 2004, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Iraq
http://www.cpt.org/iraq/detainee_summary_report.htm

• Photos: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

• The investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that “intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel” included the following:
• Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet
• Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
• Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing
• Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
• Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear
• Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being videotaped
• Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them
• Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture
• Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture
• A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
• Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee
Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade
by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001

• See also: V, sec. b: Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, War Crimes, (above)

B) Protocol I, Art. 51: “The civilian population…shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” Art. 57: (parties shall) “do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects…an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one…”
• Eyewitness statements from Mike Ferner, in and around Abu Hishma and Abu Siffa, Iraq, where homes, automobiles and orchards were destroyed by the 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Enlisted men and officers of this battalion admitted to having caused this destruction in interviews on February 24 and 25, 2004.

• See also: V, sec. c: Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, Crimes Against Humanity (above)
• At the beginning of their recent attack on Fallujah, U.S. Marines and Iraqi National Guard troops stormed Fallujah General Hospital, closing it to the city's wounded…As the invasion proceeded, air strikes reduced a smaller hospital to rubble and smashed a clinic, trapping patients and staff under the collapsed structure.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1/11/05 “Investigate alleged violations of law in Fallujah attack”
by Jim McDermott and Richard Rapport http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/207300_fallujahhospital11.html?
BBC News 11/6/04 “US strikes raze Falluja hospital” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm

C) Protocol I, Art. 70: “The Parties to the conflict…shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel…even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party.”
• Convoys sent by the Iraqi Red Crescent to aid the remaining population (in Fallujah) have been turned back.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1/11/05 “Investigate alleged violations of law in Fallujah attack”
by Jim McDermott and Richard Rapport http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/207300_fallujahhospital11.html?

• In nearby Saqlawiyah, Dr Abdulla Aziz told IPS that occupation forces had blocked any medical supplies from entering or leaving the city. “They won't let any of our ambulances go to help Fallujah,” he said. ”We are out of supplies and they won't let anyone bring us more.”
Inter Press Service 12/13/04 “U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care” by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000157.php

D) Protocol I, Art. 35: “In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties…to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited…It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.”
• During the 2003 Iraq War, United States and United Kingdom armed forces shot ammunition made from depleted uranium (DU) at a wide variety of targets. Although there is little known about the actual quantities of DU released or the locations of contamination, it appears approximately 100 to 200 metric tons was shot at tanks, trucks, buildings and people in largely densely populated areas.
The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War: An Initial Assessment of Information and Policies
June 24, 2003 by Dan Fahey http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/duiq03.pdf

• On April 1, 2003 the residential al-Hilla outskirts of Babylon were hit with an undetermined number of BLU-97 A/B cluster bombs. Each bomb releases 202 bomblets which scatter over an area the size of two football fields, with a dud rate of 5%-7%. Immediate reports stated that at least 33 civilians died and around 300 were injured in the attack. Amnesty International condemned the attack, saying that “the use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of international humanitarian law." Independent reporter Robert Fisk wrote from al-Hilla, saying that many dud bombs landed, and remain, inside civilian homes.
• On April 3, 2003 the United States reported that it had used B-52 bombers to drop six CBU-105 cluster bombs on Iraqi tanks defending Baghdad. On the same day, Iraq’s Information Minister reported that a cluster bomb attack on Baghdad killed 14 people and wounded 66.
ZNet Magazine April 7, 2003 “Irregular Weapons Used Against Iraq” by Simon Helweg-Larsen
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=3410

• On March 22, 2003, reporters from CNN and the Sydney Morning Herald - Melbourne Age embedded with the 1st Battalion 7th Marines at Safwan Hill near Basra reported air strikes dropping napalm.
San Diego Union-Tribune August 5, 2003 “Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html

• “They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud,” Abu Sabah, another Fallujah refugee from the Julan area told IPS. “Then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them.” He said pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns. Phosphorous weapons as well as napalm are known to cause such effects. “People suffered so much from these,” he said.
Inter Press Service 11/26/04 “Unusual Weapons Used in Fallujah” by Dahr Jamail
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000137.php

E) Convention I, Art. 3: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms… shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...To this end, the following acts (in addition to those listed in Art. 75, above) are and shall remain prohibited:…the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
• The Military Commission Order signed by President Bush on Nov. 13, 2001, mandated conduct by members of the U.S. military such as: allowing the use of evidence that the accused is not permitted to see, and excluding the accused from the proceedings. These provisions violate the rights of the accused to protections guaranteed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and civilian courts in the United States.
• See also: VI, sec. A) Protocol 1, Art. 75, (above)


F) Convention III, Art. 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy (are prisoners of war under this Convention), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
• President Bush issued an order on February 7, 2002, specifying that the U.S. would not apply the Third Convention to members of Al Qaeda. That order set forth policies that led to the willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment; and great suffering or serious injury to body or health, of prisoners in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay.
• See also: VI, sec. A) Protocol 1, Art. 75, (above)

G) Convention IV, Art. 33: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”
• Eyewitness statements from Mike Ferner, in and around Abu Hishma and Abu Siffa, Iraq, where homes, automobiles and orchards were destroyed by the 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army. Enlisted men and officers of this battalion admitted to having caused this destruction in interviews on February 24 and 25, 2004.

• In Fallujah, 40% of the buildings were completely destroyed, 20% had major damage, and 40% had significant damage. That is 100% of the buildings in that city.
American Friends Service Committee: Correspondents' Journal 1/20/05 “The Price of Forgetting”
http://www.afsc.org/iraq/corres_journal/entries/20050120.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. relax, scroll down and read
my points. again, this is why I asked for help of a legal mind, not the scolding of an arse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone Pawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. What? What Constitution did you read?
Here, let me clarify such things for you. With the Constitution.

1.1.1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
1.2.5 The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
1.3.6
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


'Viable body' does not exist, and no attorney need be present. The House impeaches and the Senate tries. The people do not have this power. Only the Congress does.

And I challenge you to find anything that even suggests that the people have the right to revolt in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I would argue, however, that the people DO have the power to impeach
through their elected representatives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone Pawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The question was if the people can impeach the House.
Which is an entirely ridiculous notion. We have that power every 2 years. It's called an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That is true, but that's not the question here
The originator of the thread seems to believe that you, me, and my dad can set up a courtroom in my living room and impeach Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Actually you can, but then you have to have a revolution to
make it legitimate. I believe this is how the Declaration of Independence sort of happened although it wasn't in a living room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well, if Walt and my Dad are up to it...
I'm not sure the three of us can pull it off though.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yep you're going to have to get a caucus of like minded people
who can influence others in their districts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueFlu Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. The only recourse the people have is for two-thirds of all states
to call for a Convention for proposing amendments, per Article V of the Constitution.

We would still have to go through each state's government or initiative process to call such a Convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. What do you mean by,
"Congress and Executive branch are both no longer viable bodies". How is that determined? The people need to petition their representatives to start articals of impeachment. The only way legally for people to impeach an official in the executive or legislative branch is at the ballot box.

That is why so many people are up in arms about black box voting and no way of tracking whether your vote counted and was counted correctly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisabtrucking Donating Member (807 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
15. Here's my dollar. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theres-a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
19. "the Constitution demands revolution if the government is compromised"
Uh, no, it doesn't. The Declaration of Independence does, but the DOI is not the law of the land.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Let's start again, this way
I asked for a legal mind, hence no need for the fanged attack. That said, let me state my argument.

Article 2, section 4:

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.

1). Okay, I think we can all agree that at the Executive branch every one of the High Crimes and Misdemeanors has been broken. It would then follow that the Executive Branch is impeachable.

2). The House of representatives as a whole (I do not mean individual members, of course) has been compromised. Let me simply use the ethics violations and the neutering of the ethics committee as an example of just ONE way the House is compromised. I think I need not mention any other examples, unless you need me to.

3). The Senate, although not nearly as compromised as the House, is still not acting in a responsible way. It will exceed it authority (again, as a group, not all individuals) to serve the interests of the party (Terri Shiavo, illegal war, etc.), but it will not hold investigations into criminal activity.

4). This brings me to elections, our supposed way of checking and balancing. If anyone here actually thinks that the 2000 election was honest, real, and not a subversion of law, I would love to hear your argument. If anyone here thinks that the 2004 election did not involve extreme tampering, making it suspect, I would love to hear your argument on this.

5). The Supreme Court violated the Constitution when it made a law applicable to one person, George Bush, and appointed him our President, even though he did not win either the popular vote or the electoral college vote.

So, to summarize my points: the House is not a "viable body" and the Senate is MIA. The Supreme Court has committed an impeachable offense itself. The Executive branch must be impeached. Now, where can we, the people turn to? That is my question.

Now, to use our legal documents and philosophical/historical records for those documents:

The Constitution
Article 2, section 4:
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.

Amend 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amend 2:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (note, FREE STATE)

Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article 6:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Finally, the most important historical document (to me anyway):

Declaration:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, again given that I requested the help of a legal mind, not a flaming, will someone please explain to me how we resolve the pickle that we are in? Precedents are what they are for a reason, they are the first of their kind. Why could we not sue for impeachment? I understand there is no real "legal authority" to do so, but does a precedent not make the argument that "such a legal authority is needed"?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. "Fanged attack"?!?! Because I said "Uh, no"?
You made a statement about the Constitution advocating "revolution", I was merely pointing out that it is the Declaration of Independence which does so, not the Constitution.

Peace,
sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Blast, I wanted to reply in general, not in particular to a person...
Sorry for that, the fanged attack was not in response to you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I worded that badly, I must admit
However, Amend 2 is there for a reason and the words "free society" in my opinion (my little lackluster opinion to be sure) mean a society governed, not ruled. Sorry , I worded this so badly. Like I said, if I was a legal mind, then I could make more sense on this. However, it seems to me that this could work.

Tom Delay just threatened judges with impeachment on the grounds that they obeyed law. Now, I would like to think that we, the people, should have the right, an Amend even, to ensure we are represented, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Yes, it is called elections
If the House is "compromised-" whatever that may mean - you elect a new House next year.

We have a republic if we want it - to borrow a phrase from Ben Franklin. The only recourse the people have is through the ballot box. And the fact is we get to exercise that power every two years. That's pretty powerful.

And for the record, I am a lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. I understand regarding elections...
For the record, I am not a lawyer, so there we are:)


Okay, now I want to ask you your thoughts on the last two national election cycles, if you don't mind:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. One more thing...
I don't know if you are genuinely expressing confusion over what I mean by "compromised" with regard to the House or if you are simply being facetious.

Either way, I suggest you read the House rules and see if they might apply to our leadership. On basic ethical questions outside House ethic rules, the House leadership has surpassed any doubt of their intentions:

Make laws to fit ideology of a few over the wishes of the many (perhaps too simple of a summary, but pretty close).

You might also want to read up on campaign "financing" as it currently is with regard to Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Vitter, Hastert, et al.

What word, if not "compromised," would you use?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
28. They own all the machinery...lost cause...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC