I still haven't heard anyone with a realistic and reasonable answer for what the articles of impeachment for Bush would be. Not trying to be rude but "stuff" isn't precise enough for me.

Savage is a nut case. I think he is worse than the alien groupies on Coast to Coast.

opps

[Edited on Mar 14, 2006 by bones_708]

Violating Federal Law is the one that is most likely to be brought against him, and perjury might be brought as well. Remember, an Impeachment isn't a legal trial, it is a hearing by the legislature (not the judiciary) to determine if an office holder should be removed from that office.

With that said, I hope the Congress doesn't move to impeach Bush. Not that I like the fucker, but I like Cheney even less. Let's take back the House and Senate, pass a resolution of Censure against him, then start trying to fix this government, hopefully without him trying to get in the way too much. Those republicans who need reelection in 2008 might work with the Democrats to overturn the more evil Bush vetos, but at least Bush can keep the rampant Democratic spending in check. (Social Liberal, Fiscal Moderate here. I don't fit the system that well. )

It's all right there in the constitution, federal law, and the case law, professor. Try citing some of that, apply it to the facts, and make a fucking argument.

Yeah, we've all heard that on the evening news. HOW and WHY does the document authorize circumventing FISA?

(a) The Court alread ruled that the authorization does not rise to the level of a declaration of war in The Hamdi case; (b) yes, but what is the argument FOR what you propose? We all know that the court would have to consider whether or whether not the president has the authority he claims; (c) the far more substantial issue here is whether or not the presidnet actually violated FISA, by bypassing the Court - which the act expressly forbids; (d) again, no court has to hear anything, in order for the president yo be impeached. the House has the sole province in filing articles of impeachement against the president, and the senate has the sole province of convicting him.

I know there are two sides, and I know the arguments supporting both of them. You, however, do not. I have chosen the side I wish to argue, and I've done it in COUNTLESS threads. In other words, yeah I know what the other side is, but I'm not goping to do your work for you.

Arelen Specter.
Mike DeWine
John Sununu
Lindsey Grahahm
Harry Reid
Dianne Feinstein
Russ Feingold
Chuck Schumer
Hillary Clinton
Heather Wilson

Need any more?

Bones, stop. This statement makes no sense, for lord knows how many reasons, and illustrates your lack of understanding here. Why would Reid say that the program was illegal, that it is unauthorized, BUT the president should just come to congress to discuss it? This is not the argument being made by anyone, save the Senator Grahahm types, and it is certainly not the line the Dems have taken on the issue.

No, it's a pretty pathetic display actually, given that you still haven't made a god damn argument by applying fact to law.

Or you know, statutes, case law, legal opinion, and the constitution. I know you love playing the poor victim and, but sub par capacities really aren't my problem.

[Edited on Mar 14, 2006 by Dead_Ringer]

No. None of that is correct. You, however, are correct. The Dems merely want the president to follow the law as written, which requires him to go to the FISA court.

So far Bush has proven himself to be the worst spender out of...well, anyone.

I understand that he would be accused of violating a law if he was impeached. So far perjury wouldn't come in because he hasn't made any "sworn" statements. What I am asking for is for anyone, and not really on this board as much as the talking heads I keep hearing call for impeachment, to get specific as if the were writing the articles of impeachment. What law? I keep hearing about the FISA thing but thats far from conclusive and since it also involves a claim of constitutional authority (right or wrong) this wound involve SCOTUS and take more than a little time, by then he'll be out of office.

Specter drafts bill to preserve controversial Bush wiretaps

Well there goes two of the names on the list. Want to bet I can find more?

Jesus Christ. From the article you didn't read:

A. It is a completely different proposal from what the president is doing now. It gives Congress fucking oversight over the program.

B. It is far from clear that it is constitutional because it would turn the FISA Court into an advisory board, which the Supreme Court has already held would be unconstitutional.

You keep parroting this bizarre notion that somehow the supreme court has to hear this constitutional claim before the president is impeached. It simply isn't true. There does not have to be ANY court ruling on this matter for the House to file articles of impeachment, because there is no punishment being handed down, other than removal from office. Impeachment is not an Art. III proceeding. Do you know what an Art. III proceeding is? Google it. The Court CAN hear the case before impeachment; it CAN hear it after impeachment - but it does not HAVE to hear it ever for impeachment to go forward.

If you want to educate yourself about FISA, then look it up; read the Act; read the court cases; read the legal scholarship; quit playing the "well I don't really see it" angle, because it's plain as day that you haven't bothered to learn about any of it - giving us yet another uneducated opinion to mull over.

That's true, but what he wants to spend on (Corporate Giveaways, Military, his little toy war in Iraq...) and what the Democrats would want to spend on (Welfare, etc.) aren't very much aligned. So maybe he'll actually start using his veto now.

$781 billiion extra limit on his credit card

OMG! you mean that congress may be upset because they want to wiretap instead of the pres? You say it's totally different I say it does the same thing so it's not very far off.

No I don't think SCOTUS has to say that the Pres can be impeached. I do think that until they ruled on the case that there is no chance of impeachment being anything but a stunt. Look the thing is you've picked your side. I don't think it would matter what the argument was you would bring it out and say everyone was stupid for not understanding it. My "uneducated opinion" is that it is not an open and shut case like you say. It may very well be that if this case goes to SCOTUS they will find that there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional (it wouldn't be the first time they shoked legal scholars, would it?). It would be great to impeach a president and find out there was nothing illegal that he did.

Again, wrong. The proposal is not to permit Congress to run the NSA program, but to give Congress oversight over the program, thereby making it more transparent and accountable under the law. What "you say" about the matter is pretty immaterial, given, that it contradicts what the proposal SAYS.