The constitution calls for IMPEACHMENT NOT CENSURE

[Marleyb]

There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States that allows for the censure of a president or vice president.

The Constitution is clear: Article II, Section 4 states, "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."

Ours is not a parliamentary system in which the prime minister can be called to account by the members or receive a vote of no confidence that causes his or her government to fall.

So we have to ask whether Congressman John Conyers, who quietly introduced a motion Sunday to censure George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their crimes, has gone soft in the head?

Censure is a tool Congress uses to reprimand one of its own, usually for an ethical violation not a prosecutable crime. The member being censured is expected to stand in the well as he or she is shamed and reprimanded by his or her colleagues. Can you picture Bush and Cheney standing in the House well to be publicly humiliated, especially when there is no constitutional provision for such an action?

And if somehow Conyers' censure resolution comes to fruition, merely censuring Bush and Cheney for failing to abide by their oaths of office and their mountain of crimes would be another slap in the American people's faces.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18907

[liberalnurse]

1. Censure is a step to the process.....

It has tremendous power to minimize *king W.....ultimately, the finding from the Censure will open the gate to Impeachment which starts in the House. Building a strong case is the plan. We already are placing his knights quarantine.O8)

[Marleyb]

3. I thought that too

but apparently it is not part of the process. The constitution calls for Impeachment of pres for high crimes, nothing in the constitution about censure first. Censure is for members of congress for ethics violations. You would think they'd be handing that out right and left these days.

[mcscajun]

2. There may not be any provision in the Constitution, but they can still do

it, and did once before. President Andrew Jackson was censured for withholding documents from a Whig-dominated Senate (sound a bit familiar?) The censure was later wiped out when Democrats gained control in the Senate. President Clinton was nearly censured before the impeachment furor came to a head.

A censure has no legal force, but it's one hell of an embarrassment for a sitting President. I agree that censure alone would be ridiculous; if it's a step on the road, though, I'm all for it. Fire away!

[Botany]

4. As Confucius said.

We don't have control over either the house or the senate but this
will force the repugs to defend the indefensible.

[Marleyb]

5. strike while the iron is hot...

anyone heard the ole saying?

Actually the censure is over Iraq, where we clearly have the goods on these guys.

Why did conyers call for this now amid the spying revelations- it seems to be confusing the issue. Everyone is demanding impeachment over this gross overt corruption of the constitution. The resolution of Inquiry is a step in the right direction though.

It just would be so nice for the democrats to just STAND STRONG for ONCE! Conyer's resolution,if passed, will give Bush two weeks to explain how what he did was legal. Conyers is on the house judiciary committee, we have already heard from constitutional scholars and lawyers that this is an illegal impeachable offense.

What are the democrats waiting for? This is a no-brainer!

Does anyone think the republicans would give the dems time to explain?? They would shout loudly and frequently that this spying is unconstitutional, illegal and the president should be impeached!

[Jawja]

6. Yes and

I remember Republicans in the House who impeached Clinton point out that Censure was not Constitutional and they had to follow the Constitution.

[pinkpops]

7. Censure would explain to the President

that what he is doing is indeed a crime, even for him. His current claim is that he can do what he wants to do. No court can try him so long as he is president. So the congress can act as a court and tell him it is illegal. If he persists in his claim, he could be easily removed. It is true that step 1 could be skipped, but Republicans who know he is wrong but can't bring themselves to vote to impeach might be persuaded to give him the opportunity to back down.

Thats my take.
Another possibility would be to impeach the Atty. General as a warning to the President.

[Marleyb]

8. Who do our representatives 'represent'?

The American people want impeachment, they damn well better vote for it or they are going to be out of a job.



This whole censure business, the idea of waiting for Bush to explain himself, is all a stalling tactic.

We know what he has done is illegal and unconstitutional, He knows it too...what are our democratic leaders waiting for?

For once I wish they would act like the republicans. What if one of them started ranting like Ted Stevens, playing on people's emotions about their love of country and the foundation on which it is built, promising to travel to their states to tell their constituents that they are not doing their jobs to uphold the constitution....One thing is for sure, they would call it like it is on this. Bush lied. Bush has violated our constitution(besides committing illegal immoral crimes against humanity) and should be impeached immediately.(before he kills again)

[liberalnurse]

9. Your passion is well served.....

but what we are trying to tell you is that it don't work that way. We want to lock this crime family into a cell. One must do through ground work to even attempt the goal. A rush to Impeach is like pre-mature ejaculation.,..... Censure is the foreplay, a key component to reach a moment of Ecstasy. O8)

[Marleyb]

10. The Republicans would not ask for censure

This is a stalling tactic, waiting for the outrage to die down so they can move on.

The point is, the constitution doesn't call for censure. Who came up with this idea? Why are progressive leaders like William Pitt and David Swanson calling for this? This is not part of the procedure. The evidence is cut and dry. This is a diversion.