jollyreaper2112
(955 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-14-07 10:47 PM
Original message |
60 minutes: is that directly impeachable? |
|
Bush saying he won't listen to Congress, can he be impeached for that or would he have to act on that statement, be given a bill ordering him to STFU and vetoing it?
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-14-07 10:51 PM
Response to Original message |
1. a veto is not a high crime or misdemeanor |
|
On the other hand, impeachment is entirely a political process: an office holder is impeached by a vote to impeach. While the constitution says 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that is not a precise term, there is no list of what exactly constitutes high crime and misdemeanors. So Bush could be impeached for farting in public, provided sufficient votes can be obtained.
|
jollyreaper2112
(955 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-14-07 11:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It's his right to veto, that's in the system. But when he says he would refuse to listen to Congress, I'm assuming that means he would ignore a veto-proof majority or just sign the bill into law and amend it with a signing statement. So Congress asks him to, he uses his one constitutional "don't wanna", they come back with an "uh-huh!", and he says "fuck you." That sounds impeachable but what about the statement of saying he'd do it? Would it be like the rich kid's son in the small town, he can yell and make death threats but the sherriff won't do anything about it whereas if you or I did so we'd be spending the night in jail?
|
Selatius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-14-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Put it this way: Saying you will shoot somebody is not the same as doing it. |
|
You can be impeached for the second one but not the first.
|
MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-14-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I don't quite understand |
|
Congress has no constitutional role in telling him how to run a war. The only thing they can do is not fund it.
If Congress passed a law, say, ordering Bush NOT to send extra troops, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the ink was dry on it.
So no, he doesn't have to "listen" to Congress on issues over which they have no authority.
|
Manifestor_of_Light
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-15-07 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. Subpoenas, investigations, contempt of Congress anyone? |
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-14-07 11:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
...of the House of Representatives thinks act X is impeachable, it is.
We found that out in 1998.
|
MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-15-07 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
we found that out in 1868.
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-15-07 05:11 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:03 PM
Response to Original message |