My answer to that is: You must think America is pretty weak that it can't survive it's own system protecting itself as it should.
Another stupid reason I've heard is that Bush/Cheney are almost out of office and therefore impeaching them would take too long and be for nothing since they'd be gone before it was done anyway.
My answer to this is: so, if I commit a crime but have plane tickets to leave the country in two weeks, authorities shouldn't bother prosecuting me.
So, like in the 2000 election, the law is put on hold because of time constraints?
That makes no sense.
In short, impeachment is a matter of the law. Check out [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec4|the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 4] where it says:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Read that carefully--some are pointing to the "high crimes" part and saying that Bush hasn't committed any of those. Well, he signed a bill removing the right to habeas corpus from non-American prisoners, which is a violation of the US Constitution--Article 1 to be exact. He invaded a country that did not strike America first, which is a violation of the UN Charter, and it's a violation of Article 6 of the Constitution because it says that treaties the US enters into are to be considered the law of the land. So, there are two things Bush has done that, I'm guessing, are high crimes--if violating the US Constitution isn't a high crime, what is??
NOW, before you go and say "where's your proof" or "he's innocent until proven guilty" or whatever, that's precisely my point. When people say "impeach Bush" they probably don't expect the process to be as simple as signing on a dotted line. Most educated pro-impeachers understand that impeachment is a process. That process can't happen without an impeachment trial.
Think of it like this: You see someone do something you think is a crime. You call the police and that person is arrested. Then, in a court of law--during a trial he is proven innocent or guilty of a crime. The same thing has to happen with Bush and Cheney.
It looks to a lot of people that they've both committed crimes. We need to have a trial to see if someone can prove that they did commit crimes.
I'm fine with that. If they get acquitted, we'll deal with that issue when we get to it, but if they just get to impeachment trial, we'll be talking a huge step and ultimately, that would be enough for me to be satisfied that the system is doing what it's supposed to be doing.
If we don't at least try to enforce the law, enforce the US Constitution, and uphold the rule of law, it devalues the rule of law across the board. Why should anyone bother respecting any law at all if the guy in the White House doesn't have to respect the law? And even if the streets aren't filled with lawlessness because of this horrible example set by America's top leader, what example does this set for the next guy who lives in the White House?
I've already heard analysts say that Nixon being pardoned has allowed Bush to get away with that much more. Nixon was pardoned, according to Gerald Ford, ultimately to move the country beyond an unstable time and unpleasant time. Now similar excuses are being used to not impeach Bush.
What are the excuses going to look like the next time someone in the White House should be impeached? .
Orignal From: IF YOU'RE FOR THE RULE OF LAW, YOU'RE FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
No comments:
Post a Comment