Interesting email - is this true?

[proud2BlibKansan]

Impeach Bush yourself! That's right ‹ this is much more than just a
petition.

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the in the rules for the
House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a
president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together
the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to
initiate the process.

That's where we come in. One of the ways to get impeachment going is for
individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial.
ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was
successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on
their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the
memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name,
state, etc.), and sending it in.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeaceNow.html

More information on the precedent and the House Rules on this procedure can
also be found at the above address.

If you have any doubts about Bush's crimes, read this page...
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/

Or if you are concerned over the strategy of impeaching Bush look at the
bottom of this page...
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/

It just takes a minute to save our democracy.

[tom_boy]

1. Can you tell me what this is about

From your link:

"George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"

So the UN Torture convention and the Geneva convention are the "Supreme Law of the Land"?

I kinda stopped reading after that. This sort of statment makes these people just look silly.

Plus, I was looking for a little detail. The cited evidence all pointed to the "Bush Administration". If he is going to be impeached, I suspect it is going to have to be for something he actually did, not something his administration implemented.

Not that's it's a bad idea, but maybe you can point me to a site that makes a more serious case.

[Ian David]

2. Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay n/t

[magellan]

3. Hot diggity!

:popcorn:

[Spazito]

6. How about the US code...

US CODE: Title 18, Chapter 118 § 2441. War crimes


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be 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.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) 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;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

[tom_boy]

8. Thanks.

I see how the Geneva convention got mentioned.
I still don't think its the supreme law of the land.

And they really needed to be specific about what aspects of the Geneva convention Bush personally broke. I mean Nixon actually aided and abetted burglars.

I'm dialup, so I get irritated with webpages that waste my time

[Spazito]

9. The US Code IS the law of the land re the United States

The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

[tom_boy]

17. Can you explain this to my Civics teacher?

I guess where my mind is stuck in JR Hi civics (or whatever it is called now)
Simply put:
The legislture makes the laws
The executive branch executes those laws
The Supreme Court determines if the laws are kosher (so to speak) by determinng if they are consistent with the Us constituation.

We have many sources of laws, States, Feds, even common law.
But the Supreme Law of the land is the Consitution.

OK maybe I'm nitpicking, but I think balance of powers matters.

[Spazito]

27. Ummm, you asked for links on where adhering to the Geneva

Conventions, etc, were shown to be the law of the land and I provided links and others provided direct quotes from the US Constitution yet you refuse to accept them, gosh, I wonder why? Did you phone your former civics teacher to ask him/her? If so, please post his/her explanation as you infer it would not be in accordance with the links that have been posted. If you have not contacted that teacher, why bring him/her into the debate at all?

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. What aspects he violated??

Were you asleep when the torture pictures came out?

[tom_boy]

19. Clearly the Administration needs to be held responsible for this.

The thing is, I don't think he actually tortured anyone with his own two lily white hands. We should hold the administration responsible for this disaster, but thats why we have elections.

[LostinVA]

25. He's culpable -- the buck stops there

Hey, Hitler didn't torture anyone with his two lily white hands either... Nixon wasn't the one who actually broke into the Watergate, so who cares... right?

Enjoy your stay.

[TahitiNut]

7. "This sort of statment makes these people just look silly."

Nowhere nearly as silly as someone who "stopped reading" ... as soon as they read a fact they didn't like.

The Constitution of the United States of America
Article VI

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, anything 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.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Score!!

:rofl:

[serryjw]

14. TN..Please tell me WHY

we can't start a citizen petition under the 1st Amendment? I have a bunch of grievances!

[TahitiNut]

15. Nothing I know of says we can't.

But I don't think anything says anyone has to do anything about it ... unless we want a Constitutional Convention, I suppose.

Article IV, however, is clear and unambiguous. It very clearly places treaties very nearly at the same level as the Constitution itself. That's why NAFTA, CAFTA, et. al. are so obscene and pernicious. They essentially place the entitlements of property (owners) on a nearly coequal footing with human rights ... and above state and local laws. What so truly appalling is we have a regime in power that knows very well that the very same Article which makes trade treaties so powerful is the one that makes torture, detention, abrogation of habeas corpus, and the invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation crimes of the highest level and a violation of their oaths of office ("to protect and defend").


FWIW, Article IV is also why the President must never be given unilateral authority to create treaties - for trade or anything else. Congressional ratification is absolutely essential. Sadly, it's probably not sufficient these days.

[serryjw]

16. We have Ashcroft & Gonzales

to thank for that. This is the same pResident that think the Constitution is a gddamn piece of paper.

[tom_boy]

18. OK, I see your point , and I learned something..

And since you obviously did better in civics than I did explain this

From the Constituion: (thanks, BTW)
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"

If I read this right, if the Senate approves a treaty, that treaty becomes the Supreme Law of the Land.
If Congress makes a Law, that law becomes the Supreme Law of the Land.

If thats the case, Why would it matter if a law was declared unconstitutional? After all, the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land. The law Congress made is.

(and in all this remember..right now we have a Republican majority congress)

[seemslikeadream]

20. Legislators in three states have introduced resolutions calling for the im

http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/05/state-legislators-call-for-bush.html
Vermonters deliver impeachment resolutions to Congress
http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/052006/ImpeachmentPetitions.shtml
Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060422_bush_impeachment___t.htm

[tkmorris]

21. You answer your own question

Here's the text: "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"

Thus, any law which is not made "in pursuance thereof" (in other words is unconstitutional) is in violation of this text and therefore is not the "supreme law of the land".

[tom_boy]

22. just to beat a dead horse...

I still think the Consitution should be considered the Supreme Law.
"US CODE: Title 18, Chapter 118 § 2441 " is only Supreme as long as it is considered constitional. If something is only Supreme some of the time, it really not Supreme at all, is it?. But I read the words and see your point.

Wow. Its kind wierd to think of NAFTA as the supreme law of the land, but there you go. And I guess any treaty the Republicans push thru in the meantime becomes the Supreme law of the Land. Ow. Is there a term limit on these things?

But I think this is kind of on a tangent.
I'm sorry for wasting our time on this.
Did you go to the site mentioned?
I was underwheelmed. I suppose it was judgemental of me to call it silly, but really, I am sure you know of at least 3 or 4 sites that have a little more meat on them.

[tkmorris]

24. Honestly, I don't think you are far off

"Silly" seems to just about sum it up for me. If it were possible to force them to initiate an impeachment process in this fashion it would have been done long ago, and done against every sitting president since Eisenhower, multiple times. I tried to examine the mechanism by which this would take place on the website linked to but their explanation is lacking and the various sections cited describing relevant House procedure led to dead ends initially so I gave up. I don't think there's any there there, if you know what I mean.

[TahitiNut]

26. (correct) Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Little v. Barreme (1804)

These were the first two cases (and decisions) before the USSC that interpreted this clause of the Constitution and firmly established the USSC as the final arbiter of conflicts in this area. Clearly therefore, the Constitution prevails over both Congressional legislation and Executive action where there is a conflict.

In collectively identifying the Constitution, treaties, and US Code as the "supreme law," the Constitution is making it clear that no state may legislate (even in its constitution) contrary to these laws, treaties, and the US Constitution itself. (Think civil rights and Jim Crow.) This does not prohibit a State Constitution from extending and supplementing in areas not addressed. (The State Constitution of California, for example, recognizes Privacy as a human right.)

This article makes one other thing clear: the Ten Commandments (or other theological 'laws') cannot be regarded as 'supreme' to the Constitution, treaties, and US Code. (Think about that one.)

[tom_boy]

23. maybe I should clarify..

By stopped reading I meant that I did not read the whole website.

I suppose we should assume a "innocent until proven guilty" policy and consider everything we read a fact until proven false, but really, I think you need to be a little skeptical.

I guess you might even say its silly to believe that everything you read is a fact, but you would risk sounding rude.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. The buck stops at his desk

ANYTHING his administration does falls squarely in his lap. Katrina is a great example. His administration screwed up. But yes, we do blame him.

As for the "Supreme Law of the Land" I think they are referring to the constitution.

[Toots]

28. Any treaty signed and ratified by the USA is "The Supreme Law of the Land"

Look it up...Treaties have that standing...

[lonestarnot]

4. Looks interesting, but don't think it's that easy. LOL

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. That's what I was thinking too

[mcscajun]

5. This much is true...from Jefferson's Manual

Which The House of Representatives uses as an addendum to the Standing Rules of the House:

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege. It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during that same session of Congress, previous action of the House not affecting it.

This is, of course, no guarantee of any outcome, but it would put the Congresscritters' feet to the fire, so to speak.