Constitutional Lawyer and MD State Representative, Jamie Raskin, Debunks "We Can't Impeach!"

[marmar]

A link to the video of his remarks is at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/


From AfterDowningStreet.org:


Thomas Nephew blogs: My state senator, Jamie Raskin (MD District 20), visited a forum on impeachment at Montgomery College on April 26; a video of his remarks and discussion with the audience was recently posted by the Takoma Park Impeach Bush and Cheney organization.

After some remarks about an electoral state compact idea he's working for*, Raskin turned to the subject of the forum: impeachment. As a constitutional scholar, he has very good answers to many common objections to impeachment per se:

The Constitution was designed not in such a way that impeachment represented some kind of crisis; people say "you can't do impeachment, because that will cause a constitutional crisis." On the contrary! Impeachment is the tool we use to prevent a constitutional crisis because you've got a President who is drunk on his own power and has run away with the resources of the people.

[LiberalFighter]

1. Let's see they had King George III and British Parliament during Rev War

Didn't the signers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence consider they had to be stopped? Didn't they want the ability to do the same if it happened with someone they elected? Did they want the right to do so before or after another major war?

[Toots]

4. Did they want King George stopped?......No

They never tried to Impeach King George. They did not care how he ran his government they just did not want to be a part of it. They fought for Independence not for Impeachment. I would say that is quite different than what is going on today.

[LiberalFighter]

5. They did try to have more control of their government

And they couldn't impeach King George III. Again, since they couldn't impeach the King it was probably something they wanted in place so they could control someone out of control.

About 60% of the colonials wanted to remain under control of the British.

It was only after failed attempts that they decided to fight for Independence.

[liberal N proud]

2. They didn't have any problem with Clinton's impeachment

And all he got was a blow job.
This band of criminals has caused more strife in this nation that the thousands of sperm that went down Monica's throat and spilled onto her dress.

The Constitution is in crisis people and if we simply try to wait these bastards out, there will be no Constitution to protect.

[elocs]

3. Obviously we have the ability to impeach if every Democrat votes for it,

but will they? Impeaching is one thing, but I agree with Al Gore that conviction by the Senate is very doubtful and I agree with him that there is not enough time and time is getting shorter all the time (isn't that profound?). If many of you are upset about the Democrats vote on the Iraq war funding (and you are), why would anybody think that these same Democrats would vote to impeach when very few of them support that?