How to undo Bush in just a few weeks.

[benburch]

First, we need a Democratic President and 2/3 control of the House and Senate. The way things are going now, this is not going to be hard to achieve in 2008.

Then we PACK THE COURT. We expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to 19 (which Congress has the power to do), and of course install picked and quite young candidates.

Then we sue in the Supreme Court, contesting the validity of both Bush Presidencies. The Court of course rules in favor, and all laws signed by Bush become void.

Since this amounts to a finding of Sedition, we then try Bush and all of his cabinet officers for that offense, and we should have no trouble getting a conviction and a maximum sentence.

We also sue Bush for his Salary, and all money expended for the White House, Air Force One, Secret Service Protection. etc.

:evilgrin:

[Avalux]

1. Can we send Bush and crew to the Hague for war crimes?

I'd rather that than sedition. Interesting take on expanding the SC; are there specifics on how Congress would have to vote to pass it? Hmmmm. I like it. :thumbsup:

[Dr.Phool]

4. I don't know the specifics

But FDR was having trouble with the SCOTUS upholding the constitutionality of many of his programs, and called them together and issued just such a threat.

[paparush]

49. Yes, but Jesse Helms made sure we could attack the Hague

No sh*t.

The American Servicemember's Protection Act
<snip>
SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

1. AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

2. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:

1. Covered United States persons.

2. Covered allied persons.

3. Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
</snip>

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm

[MissWaverly]

2. Brilliant

good post.

[dave29]

3. or, you could just wave your hand mystically

and say "the entire Bush administration did not happen"

This works for me.

[radfringe]

6. I prefer LIBERALLY spraying the country

with Bush-Be-GONE deoderant :evilgrin:

[zonmoy]

32. you need something a lot stronger

like christofascist be gone spray. it will drive out all the freepers and other religious right nasties.

[schmuls]

5. Oh, if only this all could come to pass! What about getting back

millions that "just got lost" in these wars and get it back to the taxpayers? (Make the war profiteers pay it back)

[OzarkDem]

7. I like the way you think

Actually, many of the blivet's Executive Orders can be revoked or neutered, as he did with many of Clinton's.

I hope we already have a transition team in place that can reverse all the damage as soon as they get into the WH.

Heck, I hope they have a plan, too for when Dems get control of one or both houses of Congress in November.

[benburch]

21. I'm pure evil.

Just ask any of my online Right-Wingnut "friends".

http://www.ezthemes.com.nyud.net:8090/previews/e/eviltheme2.jpg

[valerief]

8. If only we didn't have those damn Diebold and ESS machines to

defraud the elections!

[elehhhhna]

10. nothing a simple magnet can't take care of, mcguyver!

[Mnemosyne]

9. I'm in Ben!

Let's do this!!:woohoo::evilgrin:

It would be so much harder for a single party to control SCOTUS if there were 19 justices. I really like that idea.

I've wondering if there is such a thing as a recall election for the president? IIRC when the recall of Davis was going on the question was posed, but I can't remember why it wasn't possible.

Do you remember it? Thanks!:hi:

[benburch]

19. No. Constitution provides one way to remove a President.

Impeachment.

No recall elections, or we most certainly would be having one now.

[never_get_over_it]

41. Minor technicality

Impeach in House and Convict in the Senate only way to REMOVE - Clinton was impeached but not removed.

[Mnemosyne]

46. I figured as much.

Thanks Ben.

Maybe we should add an amendment for it though. It seems more important than flag burning and gay marriage bans.

Assholes.

[MamaBear]

11. Then we end world hunger...

Eradicate AIDS, educate everybody and build an eco-friendly permanent settlement on Mars!

Yeah, Ben! We can do it! :rofl:

Also, we can eradicate acne and invent furniture that dusts itself. :rofl:

[Ganja Ninja]

12. I've always wondered what would happen if he were ever ...

found not to be a legitimate president by the SC. My guess is it would make everything he did as president illegal. He would suddenly be considered a private citizen eligible for trial in the Hague for the war crimes he ordered.

[stellanoir]

13. from your keyboard to

the Creatrix's ears.

[hughee99]

14. Pack the court?

As we seemingly get closer to taking back congress and the presidency, it's surprising how many things we seem to support now. When * was appointing conservative a$$hats to replace outgoing justices, everyone was outraged at the though of * "packing the court". It was unconstitutional, unfair, undemocratic, highly partisan, etc... Now that we're looking to take control, and add 10 SC justices which will be appointed by a Democratic administration, there's no problem.

[benburch]

16. I never said that any of that was unconstitutional!

Just that we needed to prevent it by filibuster if we could.

This is a game of power politics. I'd rather win than lose, and no legal move, no matter how "unfair" ought to be beneath us.

[hughee99]

20. Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything...

but going back in my mind over the discussions of Roberts and Alito, it seems like quite a few people here on DU characterized this in such a way.

I'm certainly all for having filibuster proof majorities in both the house and the senate, and getting the presidency as well. I'm just not in favor of having a Democratic administration add 10 new justices. I think this sets a VERY bad precedent, that will come back to bite us in the butt down the line.

[benburch]

23. We have to survive long enough for it to bite us first.

And I think unless we do something radical like this (maybe not EXACTLY this) we won't.

[hughee99]

24. Since we have to take the house, senate and presidency

in order to do this at all, if we are in a position to make it happen, I don't think short term survival will be an issue at that point.

[benburch]

27. The Right Wing are amazingly able to lie to the public.

If we gain control, don't expect to keep it for long. Best to leave a poison pill for them in the form of a Court who won't give an inch.

[hughee99]

36. And a great poison pill it will be in the near term...

but years down the line when all these justices start retiring, we better hope we're in power, or the repukes will do EXACTLY the same thing. I would rather see some attempt to keep a system of checks and balances rather than just see the SC become a rubber stamp for anyone.

[druidity33]

45. are you in favor...

of impeaching a sitting SC judge? Not changing the entire scope of the system but repairing it from within... it seems like we should have plenty of ammo against Scalia and maybe Alito too. Keep a sharp eye on those boys... they'll overstep i'm sure.

[hughee99]

48. I don't have any issue with impeaching anyone

who deserves it, and I certainly wouldn't be upset to see those two clowns go.

[grace0418]

39. The difference is that if the court is "packed" with those of

the liberal bent, they take into consideration the wants and needs of everyone. Lefties actually have an open mind about things and choose the greater good. It's vastly different from packing the court with right-wing fascists who care only for those who are also right-wing fascists.

[hughee99]

47. Okay, that makes all the difference...

Since when we initially pack the court, it's with progressives, there's nothing to worry about. In 20-30 years, there's no possibility that repukes will get to replace 7-10 of them.

:sarcasm:

[grace0418]

50. I'm sorry, sarcasm or no, I could not make heads or tails of that

comment. No matter who is in the court today, whether it's all liberals, all conservatives or a mix, in 20-30 years anything *could* happen. What does that have to do with it?

[hughee99]

52. Okay...

The premise in the OP is that we should add 10 new SC justices, because they will vote with us on specific constitutional issues. IMHO, this sets a dangerous precedent, where politicians will seek to pervert the judicial branch by poisoning the will of judicial nominees. Now I'm not saying there isn't a little of that going on already, but the fact that this will be such an obvious power grab will lower the bar for future attacks on the judicial branch. A future argument will go "Well the repukes want to do X, and X isn't nearly as drastic as the Democrats court packing of 2009, so I'm not going to get all that worked up about it." It's wrong for the repukes to do it, it's wrong for us too.

I think we need to be selling people on progressive ideas as opposed to rigging the outcome beforehand like the repukes do.

[grace0418]

54. Thanks. I understand what you are saying a bit better.

I don't happen to completely agree, but I understand. :hi:

[adwon]

15. I'm a bit confused

How do you propose to sue in the Supreme Court? Further, assuming a suit is possible, how do you overcome mootness?

That being asked, the scenario, knowing that it is only a scenario, does make me laugh.

[benburch]

17. What is moot is whatever the court itself finds to be moot.

And if you picked the ten new Justices correctly, your case would not be moot.

This would be every bit as totally legal as was Bush v. Gore.

[adwon]

28. Yeah, but

How you propose getting around the bit in Article 3 that limits original jurisdiction? :P

[benburch]

29. You mean...

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Simple. Congress, which we control, grants the Supreme court that authority in just this one case.

[adwon]

40. Ah

I guess we just have to hope that the Court ignores the controlling precedent of Marbury. :P

[arwalden]

18. Then We Build Pig Airport

:rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

25. I can do Bush in much quicker, with almost no effort

Hide the booze from him.



DT's and rambling incoherence will follow.


On second thought, someone beat me to it.

[madokie]

26. I knew there was something about you that I liked

besides just your thoughtful posts. I will not be happy until I see the bastard facing the charges for the many crimes he has commited, some in my name, an American patriot and proud Veteran

[lala_rawraw]

30. I think that people don't understand that the election

Is what they are waiting for, which is why it is urgent that impeachment proceedings begin now. A sitting President who is impeached cannot pardon. Do you see what I mean? Once they pass election, they are free to do what they want without any care because anyone elected to office who is already in this Congress and has proved to vote against the nation's interests is not going to stop anything. In other words, Feingold and others are too few to make a difference in stopping these maniacs. Even if we win back the House and Senate, we will not be able to do anything because most of the Democratic party is already compromised by its own record, its own role in passing the patriot act twice, in promoting Hadley, Rice, Goss, Hayden, etc., in voting for a war based on lies and not having the guts to admit that they were lied to or that they would have voted differently, for failing to shut down the Congress when the intelligence oversight committee did not deliver Phase II, for not shutting down everything when Specter failed to do his job on the NSA spy ring out of Dick's office, for failing to conduct their own hearings on so many issues... they may be the minority, but the minority still has the power to shut things down, to stonewall every bill, to refuse to give an inch.. but they did not do this. So the few who stood alone like Feingold, will be still only a few when the Dems take back Congress - if they are allowed to take back Congress. At this point, this administration has one goal right now and that is to make deals and vomit up lies in order to bide time until the election, after that, they are free and I bet you that right after the election Libby and Sefavian and others will be pardoned, and Iran hit...

So we don't really have the luxury of an election cycle because we are dealing with people willing to kill their own in order to get Halliburton a few more billions and to have a few more tea parties at the Saudi-Crawford ranch. In other words, if this president and vice president are not impeached b4 election, they will become a monster beyond imagination after it.

[DemReadingDU]

51. If allowed to take back Congress

Exactly. The Republicans control everything. I don't see how they will let go of any of their power in the next election. They will do anything not to lose in the upcoming election. Maybe I will be less cynical on Nov 8.

[Dinger]

31. POST OF THE DAY!!!!

I LOVE it!:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:


P.S. Proud to cast the 10th vote!

[AuntiBush]

33. Thanks for the Optimism, Ben!

After reading a very strange posting up-thread, and watching the Dark Side I finally made a :tinfoilhat:

Another sleepless night ahead, but thanks for giving me optimism! :)

[Gloria]

34. Bush should go up with the Space Shuttle.....there's some doubt

that it is safe enough to go....I say, he should show how brave he is and go!

[savemefromdumbya]

35. make sure the voting machines aren't rigged

[Gregorian]

37. It's a beautiful idea.

I'm going to bed on that note. You made my day benburch.


Edit- not to be a party pooper, but "weeks" doesn't happen in politics or real estate. I want to be wrong about that. I'll use a phrase I absolutely dispise- fast track. :)

[Initech]

38. Personally I think the Bush movement should end the same way Disco ended

That is, we take every pro-Bush and neo-conservative book / transscript / DVD / CD, etc that we can find, and we take them to a rather large, public area, and blow the shit out of them.

[info being]

42. Then we'd be worse than them.

[JackRiddler]

43. Is this your fantasy baseball league?

You forgot one step right at the beginning:

First, the Democratic Party magically ceases being the other wing of the same corporate interests.

Then... um...

[formercia]

44. I like it too.

Get rid of every schmuck that Fearless Leader appointed. If they're doing a good job, let them reapply.

[demjuli]

53. I'd rather get back the money funneled to Halliburton

over the last several years. Cheney has enriched himself and his heirs, and those of his Halliburton cronies, for many generations to come, at the expense of the working people of the US.