eglamkowski's Journal: "I" is for...

impeachment? Just remember that if Bush is successfully impeached, Dick Cheney gets to take the reins.

And if Cheney were to suffer a sudden heart attack, you'd get Representative Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as president.

Then Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Condoleeza Rice, John Snow, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales.

It'd take an awful lot of "incapacitations" before you Bush haters could get to a president you could tolerate before the 2008 election.

So before you go rushing off in jubilant glee for impeachment proceedings, just bear in mind who would come after Bush... Because it only gets worse (from your perspective) the further down the line of succession you go.

*snicker*

Cheney

[Allen Zadr]

For the record, I'm far more scared of Cheney than Bush, but that wouldn't stop me from applauding an impeachment. I see no excuse for breaking the law.

And .. if more than a few people fall out of succession then "shadow government" would take over.

Re:Cheney

[elmegil]

I see no reason why, if the proceedings start in the fall of 2007, we couldn't make it stretch out until the election. And if Cheney has 4 months as president, so be it.

I'm told

[ces]

The Democrats evil plan involves winning the house in 2006 prior to impeaching either Bush or Cheney.

Also I think the idea is to force Cheney to resign prior to impeaching Bush as well either due to his poor health or because he is caught up in either the Plame or Abramoff investigations.

The theory is Bush would be force to appoint a somewhat moderate Republican as Cheney's replacement (say Hagel or McCain).

In all seriousness I don't really care who replaces either Bush or Cheney. If either of them violated

Re:I'm told

[eglamkowski]

Name for me a president from the past century who has NOT done something illegal or unconstitutional?

It's just a matter of a) whether or not they get caught, b) whether or not the president is of the same party as the party that controls congress at that time, and c) whether the political cost of impeachment is worth it to the congress critters.

You may not like it, I certainly don't, but that's how it works.

Re:I'm told

[gmhowell]

I'll ignore constitutionality, as your view of what is constitutional is likely a bit out of the mainstream. Focusing just on the illegal, I doubt Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford ever did anything illegal. I'd have to do a little (or a lot) of looking, but Truman?

We're not sure, as there has never been an impeachment resulting in removal from office, but it is likely that any executive (Cheney) who would rise to office following an impeachment would be seriously hamstrung.

Also, us silly Democrats already know t

Re:I'm told

[eglamkowski]

My view of what's consitutional is that government can only act according to what's actually written in the constitution.

That may not be a "mainstream" view, but there's no way it could possibly be wrong.

In fact, it MUST, by definition, be correct.

And as I said - the main difference is whether they got caught. I'm quite certain Carter, Ford and Truman must have done illegal things, they just didn't get caught so we don't know about them.

It's probably likely next to impossible for federal politicians not to

Re:I'm told

[ces]

My view of what's consitutional is that government can only act according to what's actually written in the constitution.

Well ignoring laws passed by Congress limiting the power of the executive seems to be a pretty major constitutional violation to me.

Kind of goes back to that whole thing of why we didn't make Washington king in 1789.

Re:I'm told

[eglamkowski]

Of course, Congress has no Constitutional authority to pass laws limiting the power of the executive branch. The limits of the executive branch are defined by Article II, not in Congressial legislation. Obviously other limits imposed on the government in general by the constitution are also imposed on the Executive Branch (and legislative and judicial as well).

If, when and where a president exceeds to limits of his office as set out in the constitution, it is up to Congress to impeach that president, not

Re:I'm told

[ces]

What kind of crack are you smoking?

Congress clearly has the right to pass laws regulating how the Federal Government does business, because most of that business is done under the exectuive branch Congress can therefore 'limit' the power of the executive branch.

I haven't seen anyone other than you seriously claim that Congress didn't have the authority to limit domestic spying by the Federal Government by passing the FISA statute.

I have seen others claim the President on his own authority can ignore laws pa

Re:I'm told

[gmhowell]

My view of what's consitutional is that government can only act according to what's actually written in the constitution.

That hasn't been true since at least 1860, as you are well aware. Face it, the US hasn't been governed by the Constitution since then.

I'm quite certain Carter, Ford and Truman must have done illegal things, they just didn't get caught so we don't know about them.

Certain based on what? At least for FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, there are some plausible indications of wrong doing.

Re:I'm told

[Ethelred Unraed]

The Democrats evil plan involves winning the house in 2006 prior to impeaching either Bush or Cheney.

I think the rather more evil and cunning plan would be to let them roast in their own juice as lame ducks until 2008, then let Hillary, Warner or whoever wins the Dem nomination shoot fish in a barrel.

I, for one, happen to think impeachment is not only a waste of time in this case (the Dems would have to have one hell of a landslide to get a majority in both houses and to have a prayer of achieving it),

Raised expectations

[Ethelred Unraed]

It'd take an awful lot of "incapacitations" before you Bush haters could get to a president you could tolerate before the 2008 election.

Please don't get our hopes up.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Just nit picking here...

[kesuki]

But if an impeachment trial went through, to the verdict stage against bush, then bush cheney and the entire cabinet would be out of work. we'd head straight into a special election...

now that's never happened, perhaps what you're thinking of is bush resigning before that happened. ala nixon. keep in mind that being 'impeached' just means being bought before congress in a trial. and that has only happened twice, andrew jackson, and bill clinton. neither of them were removed from office, clinton because t

ROTFLOL!

[Timex]

....and the Democrats make Dub-yuh out to be an idiot? Sounds like JOB SECURITY to me...
 
...Kinda like the way Bush the Elder had Dan Quail as VP: it was insurance, to make sure nobody tried to shoot him.

Nobody ever died from a tongue-lashing from the mouths of morons and hypocrites.