Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-27-07 07:47 PM
Original message |
The House needs to censure the president it is that simple. |
|
Specifically for its failure to answer lawful subpoenas and to deny COngress its constitutionally required oversight.
The Senate should follow suit even if it it fails at cloture.
80% of the american population would applaud the move.
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-27-07 07:53 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the constitution, or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. It derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members. Article 1 Section 5 does state that each house of Congress may set its own rules of behaviour, and by two-thirds vote to expel a member. Censure of the Executive, Judicial or Foreign entities is not explicitly defined.
Only one U.S. president has been censured. In 1834, while under Whig control, the Senate censured Democratic President Andrew Jackson for withholding documents.<1> As a partial result of public opposition to the censure itself, the Senate came under control of the Democratic Party in the next election cycle, and the censure was expunged in 1837.
Though no framework for the process of censuring a President exists, it would likely come in the form of a concurrent resolution of both chambers, and then a public announcement. It would carry no legal effect but would probably be damaging to the president's image. There was talk of censuring President Bill Clinton in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but ultimately full impeachment was pursued instead. Many constitutional experts hold that motions to censure the President violate the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder
|
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-27-07 07:57 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Do you think that we could get their attention, if we vote the lion's share of |
|
our Congress OUT OF OFFICE come 2008? They are NOT listening now. :shrug: Vote Out Incumbents Democracy http://voidnow.org
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-27-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. No I think that Would be huge mistake |
|
Having to use campaign funds to fight primary battles when we are on the verge a the GOP self-destructing and re-establishing a permanent majority is idiocy and very short-sighted.
We may want the whole enchilada now but the votes are not there. if that is a failure of principle so beit. I prefer to think of it as tilting at windmills. Its not only Quuixotic... it is political suicide.
|
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-27-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. If they haven't acted by now ... most of them need to be unseated by their democratic challenger.nt |
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-28-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. There are equally important issues |
|
where seniority in very important. It would make more sense to focus on Finding leadership who were more assertive.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 14th 2024, 08:49 AM
Response to Original message |