Then get off your dead ass and IMPEACH Senator Kennedy!

[lonestarnot]

Dear Lonestarnot, (name changed to protect the innocent heh!)

Right now, the Vice President of the United States is breaking the law.

Since 2003, Vice President Cheney has refused to comply with Executive Order 12958, which "prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information."

The Vice President claims he's exempt from presidential executive orders because, as President of the Senate, he is "attached" to the legislative branch. But the Senate has even more stringent regulations on the handling of classified material -- even more rules that the Vice President hasn't followed. In typical fashion, the White House will only say that this is an "interesting constitutional question that people can debate."

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected ...

It's time to remind the Vice President that he can't ignore our nation's laws. We're putting together a special copy of the U.S. Constitution just for him -- one that has the 39 original signatures along with all of ours. Add your name today and send a message to Dick Cheney:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/cheney

The Bush Administration refuses to hold itself accountable for the protection of our national security, and Vice President Cheney is a key part of the problem. It was his office that leaked the identity of a CIA agent to the media. He's part of an Administration under investigation for using email accounts of the Republican National Committee to conduct official government business. According to the Washington Post:

Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs.

...In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out. Close aides to Cheney describe a similar one-way valve inside the office, with information flowing up to the vice president but little or no reaction flowing down.

Executive Order 12958 states that information must be properly maintained "to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations." President Bush amended and endorsed this order, and Vice President Cheney's office complied with it until 2003. Effective oversight and transparency of our country's most important documents are essential to accountability and respect for the rule of law.

Under Dick Cheney's watch, some of our country's most disgraceful moments have happened -- from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib. Because of him, the Bush administration started in secrecy, marched to war in secrecy and will end in secrecy, all with great damage to our Constitution, to our government and to the American people.

Tell Vice President Cheney he's not above the Constitution. He can't rewrite the Constitution to suit himself.

http://www.democraticmajority.com/cheney

Sincerely,



Senator Edward M. Kennedy


I love you Ted! You must get busy now, you hear? :loveya:

[Richardo]

1. I think you're missing a comma: "...IMPEACH, Senator Kennedy!"

It looks like you want to impeach Kennedy.

[lonestarnot]

5. I know what it looks like! Catch more DUers eyes that way.

[leftchick]

20. The emphasis is on impeach

I don't see what all the confusion is about. I read it correctly the first time. And as to your point it is exactly right. That is about the dumbest fucking nonsense I have ever read from an elected official! I believe we need to send teddy Article II, Section 4 of the constitution before he sends his little gift to dick. :eyes:

[lonestarnot]

26. Thank you leftchick! I love smart DUers!

:hug:

[mmonk]

62. Devious

[lonestarnot]

74. dissident, disobedient, discontent, deviant!

:evilgrin:

[melody]

2. I'd like to request a comma between "impeach" and "Senator Kennedy"

In this very dark time, I've become quite attached to our few liberals, even "dead ass" ones.

[Bluzmann57]

3. Your headline is confusing

I thought you meant that Senator Kennedy should be impeached. Not to be among the puncuation police, but you really should add a colon or something.

[lonestarnot]

10. And you should really read the rest of the post.

[Bluzmann57]

27. Um...I did.

But the headline is still confusing.

[lonestarnot]

31. It's ooooo kkkkkkk bluzmann57. It'll be alright.

[mondo joe]

4. Your subject line looks like a command to Republican zombies to rise from their graves to impeach TK

[lonestarnot]

7. And did you read the rest of the post? Just curious.

[mondo joe]

11. No, I didn't. See? Good communication pays off!

[lonestarnot]

14. Well then you are a lazy DUer and have no room for comment Joe mondo

[mondo joe]

17. I don't care for manipulative tricks. When you want to communicate honestly

you'll get due consideration.

Thanks!

[lonestarnot]

29. Thanks...

:eyes:

[endarkenment]

35. So you deliberately confuse and then complain when we don't play?

Sheesh.

or else you made a very easy to make mistake and are bit of a stubborn mule.

[lonestarnot]

40. A little of both. Don't you see the irony?

Our most powerful Senator sends me a letter with regard to the criminal in the 4th branch of government and then mentions nothing about any impeachment action. Nothing mentioned about a remedy other than a suggestion to write bushitler a letter with regard to the criminality, like that fuckwad doesn't know he's breaking the law. Now I do not see that as a remedy. For seven years, I've been reminding them that I know they are criminals. That has not done a damn thing. Not one damn thing. They are still criminals, yet the remain in control of the government that I must live under and they are still "free" to do with as they wish, even create 4th branches of government. Totally fucking insane. Totally fucking insane. Worse than through the looking glass. Heh heh heh.

[endarkenment]

47. No, and I appear to join most everyone else posting here.

What I see is either you being manipulative, which most of I have had quite enough of, thanks, or you doing a stubborn CYA stunt. Why not just put a damn comma in your headline and be done with it?

[lonestarnot]

50. 5 recs. 5 people get it and I will not change it.

[LaurenG]

9. Lol

Very colorful and descriptive. :rofl:

[yy4me]

6. You still have time to back and edit that headline. He may be

old and sometimes frustrating as heck but lets save impeachment for the big 2 now in office.

Note: Can you edit the title line??

[lonestarnot]

8. And how bout you, did you read the rest of the post?

[havocmom]

12. I did and I would like you to edit that subject line too

You just morally opposed to comas or sensible communication?

[lonestarnot]

16. It is eye catching. And I did edit for those who read.

[DancingBear]

77. Oh, our little panties are in a knot over punctuation

Two things:

1) It reads much better the way you wrote it

2) Be glad it wasn't Obama who sent you the email - you'd be hung at daybreak for being a bad liberal and not playing within the rules.

:hi:

(P.S. Don't worry - I'm sure Senator Slither will get around to sending you one, once he realizes it's "safe."

[lonestarnot]

84. Thanks DancingBear.

It is sometimes worth it to get beat up. LOL

[bigtree]

13. Kennedy, dead on his ass? Hardly.

mindless.

Posts like this one seem like concerted efforts to draw people away from everything the Democrats are doing short of impeachment. That effort, if successful, is as pernicious as any reluctance of these legislators to move right to impeachment.

[lonestarnot]

21. If they are going to sit by after they have written me a letter about a fucking criminal

inhabiting my White House and not try to impeach the fuckwad then they deserve criticism. And furthermore anyone who is involved in the complicity with inaction toward impeachment is a mindless freak, not me.

[bigtree]

32. I disagree

Just because you haven't gotten your way and convinced more than a handful of our legislators to move to impeachment doesn't automatically eviscerate everything else they're doing; a great deal of which could very well lead to the accountability folks claim they want.

Forgive me if I don't join in your attempt to smear our party and our hard-working legislators with complicity in Bush's crimes and abuses as they're working their asses off to reverse them (with mindless ingrates throwing the most stones at them instead of toward the ones actually responsible)

[lonestarnot]

34. You also need to learn to read. My goodness. I give DUers credit for

learned scholars of politics. No one is throwing stones at Ted. He is my favorite Senator. I was overcome by his presences when I was honored with his handshake. He is a rock. He can take it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. How arrogant and ignorant of you!

When several people tell you that there are serious problems with the content and grammar of your post, instead of thinking to yourself, "hey, maybe these people are right - I should make some changes," you think everyone else is wrong instead.

Newsflash, genius - YOU are the problem, not us.

[lonestarnot]

46. Group think got the pugs far ...

Ad hominem attacks don't bother me. :toast:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Actually, it's not an ad hominem attack.

The argument was about how poorly you constructed your post in the first place, so "attacking" you isn't ad hominem. at all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. The Senate cannot initiate impeachment. Only the House can

[lonestarnot]

22. I know that. But don't tell me he can't be backing up impeachment with his powerful voice.

[onenote]

56. he could, but it would open him to serious and valid criticism for prejudging the matter

Would it be acceptable for a judge to be publicly urging that a prosecutor seek a specific indictment so that the judge could then rule on the case? Don't think so.

[lonestarnot]

85. Nope you are wrong.

[midnight]

18. That's kind of cute that Mr. Cheney thinks that he can rewrite the

Constitution. Wow- to feel that powerful. Does this mean we can look at removing those types of law breakers? I know everyone is busy and their is much else to do. Collect taxes from the poor, and give the tax breaks to the rich. Give all the govt.contracts to the rich, and make the small business people do without. Give big business the freedom to control the vote counting in this country. Take away funding for higher education. Lots of investigations, and ..........

[lonestarnot]

23. Woot! Unbelievable about all that work that needs to be done! Nevermind the criminals at the top!

[kenny blankenship]

19. Senators don't impeach

[lonestarnot]

24. Well no shit sherlock, but they have mouths don't they?

[leftchick]

37. lol!

you are killing me! :rofl:

Isn't it a sin you have to spell shit out for people?

[lonestarnot]

79. Sin sin sin wagon. I'm on the sin wagon!

:rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

25. Shhh.

[lonestarnot]

28. it....

[leftchick]

38. ....

ain't that the truth!

:rofl:

[lonestarnot]

43. Heh

:rofl: :toast:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Hey dumbass, the SENATE CANNOT IMPEACH.

Good fucking god, if you want to engage in politics, at least learn the basics of how our government operates. :grr:

[lonestarnot]

33. Hey Vash the Stampede. Learn the basics of reading.

You'll be alot better off in life.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Learn the basics of grammar.

You have a misleading title, one which is factually in correct even if properly punctuated, and you've got a post that cuts and pastes a letter from Senator Kennedy, with some unintelligible remarks underneath it. I can read - can you write? Apparently not.

[lonestarnot]

42. You got the fucking message it looks like, however you choose to be complicit and want to

argue fucking grammar. Hike it pal.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. I got the message and it's still idiotic.

I'll "hike" whatever I want to, "pal". When you become Fuhrer of DU, you can decide who gets to post what. Until then, deal with the criticism you get.

[lonestarnot]

49. If you think I am going to discuss anything further with you in your

attempt to get the thread locked, you are mistaken. I am entitled to my opinion. Condoning criminal behavior in MY White House is beyond the pale.

[endarkenment]

36. The DUs needs us a worstest page. nt.

[lonestarnot]

44. heh heh heh

:toast:

[mopinko]

51. i get your point. pretty much what i thought when i got it.

man, i am getting sick of these people using the high crimes of bushco as fundraising aids. i know this shit worked well on the fundies, but it would be nice if our guys had a slightly higher opinion of us. especially those of us smart enough to have computers and email and all.

[lonestarnot]

52. Baby I'm there! Sick fucking SICK of it! I feel like I'm in an evil vacuum of the dumbed down.

I still have the old fight in me though. Keeps me going! Never fucking surrender!

[OzarkDem]

53. Seems a bit hypocritical

Dems have taken impeachment "off the table", except when they want to raise money from the grassroots.

I don't like being manipulated that way.

[lonestarnot]

55. Solution appears to be write a letter. LOL

[onenote]

54. and, how, exactly should Senator Kennedy "get busy"?

While the OP has acknowledged in subseuqent posts that Senator Kennedy can't initiate the impeachment process from the Senate, the OP seems to be suggesting (and his/her subsequent posts seem to confirm) that Kennedy should be expressly advocating that the House impeach. That would, of course, be the equivalent of a judge publicly urging a prosecutor to bring a case or a grand jury to indict so that the judge could then hear the case. It would, in a word, be inappropriate.

During the Clinton impeachment, most, but not all, Senators endeavored to keep their mouths shut on impeachment until the matter came before them. I recall a few instances of Senators speaking out in advance, such as Sen. Bennett of Utah. And as I recall, Democrats lambasted him for "prejudging". Biden even gave a speech making the point that it would violate a Senator's constitutional responsibility to speak out on the matter before it came before them.

So, exactly what are you asking Senator Kennedy to do?

[lonestarnot]

57. There is much he could be doing without a public speach.

Sending me a letter advocating writing a letter to bushitler is not one of them. I have to go now, but I promise I will reply with suggestions.

[pat_k]

60. He has a mouth and a Big Megaphone.

He could introduce a Senate resolution today that calls on the HOUSE to impeach. He holds an office that gives him a BIG megaphone. He can say something like

"We must end that "other war" -- the War Bush and Cheney are waging on the Constitution. Removal is our only defense, Bush and Cheney have made it clear that NOTHING else will stop them. I call on the House to act. Now.

[lonestarnot]

78. He needs to do a better job of standing on the ethics platform.

He needs to point out the criminality with a louder voice. The email was a start. He needs to call Ann Coulter while she's on with Tweety. He needs to stay awake nights figuring something out. He needs to do it!

[pat_k]

58. Introduce a Senate resolution calling on the HOUSE to impeach. . .

. . . so the Senate can take up the fight to REMOVE.

Hey Kennedy, don't ask me to join your impotent finger wagging. In Bush World, the only REAL fight is the fight to impeach. ALL else is sham.

The petition has a comment section. Here's what I added.

Sen. Kennedy, you say Cheney "can't rewrite the Constitution to suit himself"

Well, he can, he is, and he'll continue to. Why wouldn't he? He and Bush have been waging open war on our Constitution for years. And before the 110th Congress even convened, the ENTIRE House and Senate leadership SURRENDERED.

We hired YOU, your fellow Senators and Members of the House "support and defend" ("defend" meands FIGHT, win or lose). Why don't YOU take up the fight and introduce a resolution TODAY calling on the House to send up Articles of Impeachment ASAP???

[onenote]

59. would it be proper for a judge to call on a grand jury to indict?

Senators sit as allegedly impartial judges in impeachment trials. Democrats rightly criticized repub Senators who endorsed impeaching Clinton prior to the consideration and adoption of impeachment articles by the House. What you are suggesting would open Kennedy to the criticism that they have prejudged a matter on which they could sit as judges. Not smart.

[pat_k]

61. Impeachment is a political process; not a legal/judicial process

While the Senate "trial" may have the trappings of a judicial proceeding, there are NO objectively defined impeachable offenses, NO required standard of proof, NO rules about what evidence can or can't be considered, and NO attempt to minimize the influence of public opinion. (Regarding the last point, like any polical process, the will of the electorate is central.)

Each Senator must decide for themselves the standards and definitions they deem appropriate. The Chief Justice presides, but has no judicial role. His rule is essentiall that of chair -- i.e., he sees that proceedings comply with Senate rules and the procedures defined for the "trial." (More on the subject of what impeachment is, and is not in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20"> Lobbying for Impeachment: Take along a Big "Clue Stick" !)

Any member of the Senate who has concluded that Bush and Cheney are subverting or threatening the Constitution is duty-bound to speak up. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When they conclude there's a threat and believe a particular course of action is required, they better darn well tell us about it so we can decide whether or not we agree.

The resolution may need to be carefully worded so it would in no way infringe upon the sole power of the House to impeach, but I am not aware of any rule that would preclude a Senator from introducing, or preclude the Senate from passing a resolution declaring certain conclusions and conveying those conclusions to the House.

Whereas, George W. Bush has . . (war crime of your choice)

Whereas, George W. Bush has . . (pick a signing statement that rewrites or exempts the executive from law)

Whereas Richard Cheney has . . . (public statement asserting unitary authoritarian power to justify violating law.)

Resolved, That--

(1) it is the sense of the Senate that these acts constitute intolerable abuses of power and grave violations Constitution ; and

(2) the Senate conveys these conclusions to the House Judiciary Committee and encourages the Committee to consider initiating impeachment proceedings.

[onenote]

63. it is both political and judicial

Trying to pigeonhole impeachment into the equivalent of either a legislative debate (political) or a judicial proceeding (criminal trial) is a mistake. It has, as intended by the framers, elements of both. The notion that the "trial" portion should be conducted with procedures designed to assure the public of a fair process is nothing new. Indeed, the very reason for removing the Vice President from the chair and installing the Chief Justice in that role -- something that occurs only in the case of a presidential impeachment -- is to ensure that the process is, to the greatest extent possible, immunized from the taint of bias and prejudgment. While in truth there is bias and prejudgment in impeachment matters -- just as there is to a certain degree in criminal and civil trials (some judges having made known their positions through prior decisions, speeches, articles, etc), maintaining an appearance of impartiality and a respect for the separate roles carved out by the consitution is not a small matter. And for the Senate to step forward with a resolution indicating that it had reached a judgment on the issues that would come before it in an impeachment context in advance of those matters having been put before the Senate would be, imo, improper.

Senator Biden, in his inimitably longwinded way, made this point prior to the Clinton impeachment:

"Let me also say that I have made no judgment. I have not made any decision on what I think should happen. I have not come to any conclusion as to consequences the President should face for his shameful behavior, because I believe the oath of office that I have taken on five solemn occasions--four which were right here in the well, and one which was in a hospital in Wilmington, DE--on those five occasions, the oath that I took I believe precludes me, and I will respectfully suggest any other Senator, from prejudging, as I and all other Senators may be required to serve as the Constitution dictates, as judge and juror in what may become the trial of this century."




http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229851&&

[pat_k]

64. No. It's just political.

Judicial processes are designed to minimize subjectivity.

Impeachment is guided by no rules that minimize subjectivity. Like all political processes, subjective judgment is the name of the game. It can therefore in no way be considered a judicial process.

[onenote]

66. this would suggest otherwise

From the Rules of the Senate: the special oath that Senators must take before participating in an impeachment trial:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ------ ------, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.''


Impartiality. Maybe its never achieved, but its the stated goal.

In addition, once the House passes an impeachment resolution, Senators, having heard the evidence, are free to decide against impeachment, not based on whether the accused committed the acts with which he/she is charged, but based on the Senator's judgment on whether the matter warrants impeachment. In other words, a Senator can disagree with the House's judgment. But under the constitutional scheme, it is for the House to make that judgment in the first instance and it is at odds with that scheme for the Senate to pass judgment as to whether acts are "impeachable" in advance of the House.

[pat_k]

67. No objective criteria = subjective judgment

Given the context -- no external authority or objective criteria to define the offenses that are impeachable, no external standard of proof, no binding rules of evidence, and so on -- "impartial" cannot be considered synonymous with "objective." Only to "reasonably" or "without prejudice."

The words "according to the Constitution and laws" don't make impeachment a judicial process, any more than it would make it an executive process. The powers we delegate, the duties of office, the limits, the means of electing, appointing, removing, and so on are carried out "according to the Constitution and laws" in all three branches of our government.

[lonestarnot]

70. Judicial in that there are rules established by the Constitution.

[pat_k]

80. Constitutional dictates cover executive processes too. . .

That doesn't make them in any way "judicial."

Constitutional dictates cover the processes by which the men and women we elect to a given Congress create law. That doesn't make the process of creating law a "judicial" process.

We gave the power to impeach to Congress, not the Courts, for a reason. Like creating law, impeachment is intended to be the best, and most direct, expression of our will possible. We gave the power to initiate the process to the House -- the body closest to, and most accountable to, We the People.

[lonestarnot]

83. I hear you. Separation of powers, but, what I meant was judicial in that

there is a person with a gavel overseeing the process. That person is guided by the rules and a judicial proceeding as any in Court.

[pat_k]

88. The chief justice has no independent "judicial" role. . .

. . .his role is essentially that of chair (i.e., ensuring the process is conducted in a manner consistent with the rules the Senate has established for itself).

As pointed out in a post above, while a Senate "trial" has the trappings of a judicial/legal process, and parallels are often drawn between impeachment and indictment, the purpose and outcome is in no way "judicial." It is political.

The only standard that is inviolate is the standard set by their oath to "support and defend."

If the actions of an official in the judiciary or executive constitute a clear threat to, or subversion of, the Constitution, the only "correct" judgment is to remove (defend by taking away the power to harm). In our current crisis, Bush and Cheney are openly violating the law and making the intolerable claim that they have the absolute power to do so. The ONLY outcome consistent with reality is removal.

But an official's offense need not be so clear cut to be "impeachable." One Congress may deem an action to be a betrayal of public trust that doesn't constitute an attack on constitutional principle -- and therefore does not mandate impeachment. Another could view the betrayal as an act that does mandate removal. Both would be "correct" because each new Congress judges by definitions and standards it sees fit (limited only by their oath).

In judicial process, the goal is to find an objective "truth." We seek to design procedures and create a body of law and precedent detailed and specific enough that a trial conducted by one court would yield the same outcome as another. The imperfect world of human endeavor makes the goal elusive, but the process is designed to come as close as possible. In a judicial process, law that is currently contrary to the will of the people must nevertheless be applied until the people, through political/legislative processes, change it to better reflect their will.

In other words, legal/judical processes seek to discover "truth and justice" consistent with the body of law in place at the time. Impeachment is a process that seeks to discover the true and direct will of the people at a given point in time -- the same goal that all our political/legislative processes seek.

I harp on the distinction because Congress is so full of lawyers who use legal standards as a cudgel to shut people up ("You common people just don't understand the complexities."). Too many of us have been trained to submit to "expert" authority, often when such "authorities" trump reality and their will. We need remind each other that We are in charge -- and that we created means to ensure it.

Impeachment is one of those processes. Our will, expressed through Our Congress, trumps all legalisms. Impeachment is of absolute necessity to maintaining our sovereign authority over the officials we hire to serve us. (It's like January 6th, another political process designed as to trump invalid elections that judicial processes fail to remedy.)

[Disturbed]

65. Yeah, I got it. At first I thought it was merely an error of ommison.

Writing a letter is a small step. A big step is needed. The more important point is that TK should have called a Press Conference to announce that he is calling for all House Members to move forward on the Kucinich VP Impeachment.

[lonestarnot]

68. Yes! Johnnie's home!

I'm back to it. Have to read all the posts.

[lonestarnot]

69. It is proper for a judge to report criminality yes.

[onenote]

81. it is not proper for a judge to push a grand jury to indict

and then hear that case.

Not even close.

If the Senate wants to investigate and report to the country what it finds as a factual matter, fine. But putting it terms of impeachment and urging the House to take that particular action...nope. Not proper. And it presents all sorts of issues relating to the oath Senators take to be impartial in an impeachment trial if they have prejudged the issue of whether a particular action warrants impeachment.

[lonestarnot]

82. So he get's with the progam and blabs to the American public, House and his dog then recuses himself

from the proceedings. What could be wrong with that?

[pat_k]

90. Invalid parallel (addressed in Reply #61)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1193722&mesg_id=1196333">Reply #61

[burrowowl]

71. The missing comma

threw me for a loop!
I thought: Oh no! What did Ted do!
Good post though.

[lonestarnot]

75. woot. burrowowl!

:toast: Love owls. They are so wise.

[BlueIris]

72. Classy.

[lonestarnot]

73. He is not alleged to be so, He helps make 'em; they break 'em.

[porphyrian]

76. Yeah. - n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Only the House can impeach

[upi402]

87. Yup!

[pat_k]

89. And he can say it's about time they do.

He's got a mouth. They all have. The case is so simple, removal so clearly the only defense, each and every Member of the House AND Senate should be out there fulfilling their oath to "support and defend" by calling the American people "to arms."

Instead of asking us to wag our fingers at Cheney, he ought to be promoting a petition calling on the House Judiciary Committee to immediately open impeachment hearings to make the case (We're way past "investigation.")

[pat_k]

91. Oh Goody! A follow up.

A follow-up missive. . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1205027&mesg_id=1205027">Hey Senator Kennedy, thanks for nothin'