Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal NeMon'ess's Journal: Bill Moyers' Roundtable On Impeachment Of Bush & Cheney 17

"PBS' Bill Moyers sits down with The Nation's John Nichols and conservative constitutional attorney Bruce Fein from the American Freedom Agenda to discuss the crimes and abuse of power by George Bush and Dick Cheney and the need to impeach them both. While Nichols and Fein come from different ends of the political spectrum, they are in total agreement on this issue. Congress must put impeachment on the table because if they do nothing to stop Bush and Cheney now, we will see future presidents follow in their footsteps which would be a disaster for our country." - Crooksandliars.com

JOHN NICHOLS: "the Scooter Libby affair gets to the heart of what I think an awfully lot of Americans are concerned about with this administration and with the executive branch in-- general, that it is lawless, that-- it can rewrite the rules for itself, that it can protect itself.

And, you know, the founders anticipated just such a moment. If you look at the discussions in the Federalist Papers but also at the Constitutional Convention, when they spoke about impeachment, one of the things that Madison and George Mason spoke about was the notion that you needed the power to impeach particularly as regards to pardons and commutations because a president might try to take the burden of the law off members of his administration to prevent them from cooperating with Congress in order to expose wrongdoings by the president himself. And so Madison said that is why we must have the power to impeach. Because otherwise a president might be able to use his authority and pardons and such to prevent an investigation from getting to him."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill Moyers' Roundtable On Impeachment Of Bush & Cheney

Comments Filter:
  • Is there ever a time when a presidential pardon is a good thing, or is it simply an unwarrented "get out of jail free card" every single time? I would much rather see the ability to grant a special hearing (to stay an execution for example) than a free and clear pardon, so that if a special hearing has already taken place we don't have abuses like what we are seeing now.

    The more I think about it, the more I think it may actually be time for another Continental Congress; sadly at this point it would be full

    • by dave-tx ( 684169 ) *

      I don't believe that a President (or Governor, or any other one person) should have the authority to grant pardons. It's been abused too many times, both for personal reasons and political reasons.

      This seems to be a major mistake by the Founding Fathers...When you consider that a President can issue pardons just before leaving office (as Clinton did), there is no possibility of Congressional checks-n-balances.

  • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot
    I watched this episode and thought it was ... pretty lame, actually. I wrote about Fein last year when he was making incorrect claims about the Military Commissions Act. [slashdot.org] And here he was less incorrecton the small points, but his and Nichols' main thesis was incorrect: that there is a duty to impeach.

    They have very few examples of actual offenses (and Nichols gave the pathetic excuse that you don't need to show specific examples of crimes, just a PATTERN of crimes ... which they could not show without exam
    • You're an idiot. Just because a right is not enumerated in the constitution, it doesn't mean we don't have those rights. Habeas corpus is a right that nobody has the right to take away, period. And everybody has that right, including those the president quite wrongly considers to be a "terrorist". He can and does change the definition on the slightest whim. Take your Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148
      • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

        You're an idiot.

        You're retarded, so how would you know?

        Just because a right is not enumerated in the constitution, it doesn't mean we don't have those rights.

        I never implied otherwise. That is called the straw man logical fallacy.

        Habeas corpus is a right that nobody has the right to take away, period.

        Well, no. Indeed, the Constitution says it is a right that can be taken away, under certain conditions. So you're wrong right off the bat.

        And everybody has that right, including those the president quite wrongly considers to be a "terrorist".

        First of all, what about those he RIGHTLY considers to be terrorists? It is unequivocally true that at least some of the alien unlawful enemy combatants are, in fact, terrorists.

        Second, yes, everyone has the right to writ of habeas corpus, including AUECs

        • ...the Constitution says...

          The constitewshun sez...The constitution says you're an idiot. A mindless 'droid. "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." - terrorist manifesto...

          ...And I demonstrated in the last post that everyone KEEPS that right.

          The only thing you have demonstrated is that you're a bubble headed booby who can recite passag
          • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

            The constitution says you're an idiot. A mindless 'droid.

            Nice ad hominem/red herring. Can't actually argue against my point, so you change the subject.

            "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." - terrorist manifesto...

            Nice question-begging. You've yet to show any abuses or usurpations.

            The only thing you have demonstrated is that you're a bubble headed booby who can recite passages without having the slightest idea what they mean.

            And yet, you cannot argue against me. What does that say about YOU?

            The right is inalienable, absolute.

            The text of the Constitution itself denies this. It gives an explicit condition under which the right of habeas corpus may be suspended. What part of "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public

            • I bet you squat to pee.

              The text of the Constitution itself denies this.

              argumentum ad verecundiam...Thanks for proving MY point!

              Nice ad hominem/red herring.

              once again resort to ad hominems.

              Ibid.

              Once, twice, three times the lady... Blow me! But take your teeth out first.

              ...then why don't you argue against my points?

              Because you are pointless.

              Our planet is being punished with your presence. At the same time, your idiocy is very entertaining. You are quite the spectacle. A real barrel of laughs.
              • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                The text of the Constitution itself denies this.

                argumentum ad verecundiam...Thanks for proving MY point!

                Your point is that it is fallacious to look to the Constitution to see what our Constitutional rights are?

                Huh. Odd.

                Once, twice, three times the lady... Blow me! But take your teeth out first.

                Yawn. Still can't address the actual arguments.

                ...then why don't you argue against my points?

                Because you are pointless.

                Yawn.

                • Yawn. Still can't address the actual arguments.

                  I guess you're too moronic to notice that an appeal to authority is not an argument. You are wrong because I say you are wrong. I know it, and other people know it. The only authority you need to appeal to is me, and them. I do not recognize the authority that you do appeal to. Either does President Dumbfuck, apparently. Our rights exist with or without your constitution and go way beyond what is written there. You merely express incorrect contradictions. In fa
                  • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                    I guess you're too moronic to notice that an appeal to authority is not an argument.

                    When the argument is what is legal, then actually, appealing to the Constitution is the best argument.

                    Our rights exist with or without your constitution and go way beyond what is written there.

                    Fine, believe that. But in our legal system -- and the discussion here is precisely about the law and legal remedies -- you need to have an actual argument, not simply "I disagree with the Constitution." And you have provided no argument that says that statutory habeas corpus rights that did not exist 100 years ago, in law, or even common law, are unalienable. You simply asserted it, against all logic.

                    • Your law has nothing but its weaponry to prop it up. It is meaningless. Death before slavery, if that's what it takes. Your case is a house of cards built on quicksand.

                      You're so cute when you try to dodge the fact that you have no actual point or argument!

                      Then... you will go to bed with me? Not so fast, bub! Not without dinner and a movie. I'm no floosy. I don't just fall for the first one with a fancy car and nice shoes. Show some class and a little respect, and I'll give you a mouthful of lovin', baby. It
                    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      Your law has nothing but its weaponry to prop it up.
                      Well, no. It has the people.
                    • Yeah well, Stalin and Mao, and that guy with the silly mustache had people, too. Saddam and bin Laden had your support. And Bush has you now. Yep, a real nice club you all belong to there. But hey, they were legal, so that makes it okay. Go to hell.
                    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot
                      Godwin.
                    • Well...being the weasel that you are, you gave out exactly the response I expected in your vain attempt to wiggle out of the hole you dug yourself into, but you just put yourself in deeper still. You are so predictable. I almost left his name out because of that, but I thought *what the hell*, he fit in with the rest. And so do you. You would be right there supporting any one or all of them because the "constitution sez"... which, in your book makes it perfectly ok. You are the bumbling Colonel Klink always
                    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      Well...being the weasel that you are, you gave out exactly the response I expected in your vain attempt to wiggle out of the hole you dug yourself into, but you just put yourself in deeper still.

                      Interesting: distract from the fact that you are the one refusing to address the points by accusing me of that. Do you actually attempt to believe the nonsense you spew?

                      You are as dumb as they come, to the point of being almost boring.

                      And yet, you are apparently incapable of addressing my points. So you are ... dumber than they come?

                      But then, being such a hateful bigot

                      You cannot, of course, provide a single example of me being a bigot. And you are, of course, far more hateful than me: the only hatred I routinely express is toward liars and criminals.

                      You are abhorrent, abusive, annoying, detestable, disagreeable, discourteous, displeasing, disrespectful, distasteful, dreadful, embarrassing, evil, foul, ghastly, grisly, grody, gross, hideous, horrible, horrid, insolent, invidious, irritating, nauseating, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offending, opprobrious, outrageous, repellent, reprehensible, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, rotten, rude, shocking, terrible, uncivil, unmannerly

                      And you can copy and paste from a thesaurus!

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Working...