My Pelosi Thread

[BuyingThyme]

CONSTITUTION: Congress shall impeach for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
PELOSI: “Impeachment is off the table.”

CONSTITUTION: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
PELOSI: “I have the sole power.”

CONSTITUTION: Judgment in the cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, but the party convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.
PELOSI: “Moot point.”

CONSTITUTION: The senators and representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.
PELOSI: “Well, that depends on what the meaning of shall is.”

CONSTITUTION: Congress shall impeach for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
SHEEHAN: "Impeachment is not optional."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2896970

[bryant69]

1. If Pelosi was 100% behind impeachment, what are the odds he would

actually be removed from power?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BuyingThyme]

2. That's not her concern.

[bryant69]

4. Why isn't it?

Wouldn't it matter?

Actually there are two questions - would the House successfully impeach, and would the Senate successfully convict?

Bryant

[BuyingThyme]

5. It's her sworn duty to forward matters of presidential

treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

She has no say on conviction.

[bryant69]

6. What if she can't get the impeachment?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BuyingThyme]

7. What if she can't get health care reform?

Or port security? Or a raise in the minimum wage?

And these are things she actually does have the option of taking off the table.

[CJCRANE]

3. delete

[Toots]

90. What are the odds your child will become President if you educate them?

Should you not educate your child because the odds are against them?

[Kelly Rupert]

8. Wow, that's a surprising lack of comprehension.

The Constitution says no such things. Let's look at what it actually says.

1. 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.

That doesn't say the Congress must impeach, as you say. It says that should a civil Officer of the United States be impeached and convicted, they shall be removed from office. Why would you change the wording around? Why would you put words in the Framers' mouths if not to distort?

2. The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments? That is true. And not related. Because as you also surely know, the Constitution also provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Pelosi, as Speaker of the House (and assuming a Democratic congress loyal to her), does indeed realistically have the power to impeach or not to impeach. She never claimed she had the authority to try. That's ridiculous. She claimed she was not going to consider impeaching, which is perfectly valid.

3. It is a moot point. They're not going to impeach. Therefore the punishment in event of impeachment is moot.

4. And they shall.

[BuyingThyme]

11. You are as wrong as a person can be.

I've been though this with you before, but you are unteachable.

Beyond simple grammar, you don't even understand the purpose of the document. If you did, you'd have no problem understanding what I'm saying because the entire Constitution is written in the same way.

Every legitimate Constitutional scholar in the country understands this as I do. Why don't you just take the time to learn?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. That's Really Funny, Since The Person Is 100% Correct.

I found your accusation towards the poster to be immensely laughable.

[BuyingThyme]

16. Look, if you're incapable of understanding what the Constitution is,

that's your problem.

But if you'd like to know, just take the time to learn.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. Methinks You Need To Turn That Pointed Finger Around, With All Due Respect.

Neither I nor the other poster referenced are the ones showing the complete lack of capability of comprehending the truth of the constitution.

Also, please note, that both of us were the ones that accurately and factually posted what is truly written in the constitution, as opposed to posting a false quite that was deceitful, misleading, twisted and non-factual.

[BuyingThyme]

18. Do you believe Congress has a sworn duty to remove from office

a president who has committed treason?

If not, why? If so, where did you get such an idea?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Of Course Not. To Declare Such Is An Absurdity And A Gross Misinterpretation Of The Constitution.

There is no sworn duty to impeach; Period.

There is a sworn duty to protect the constitution. Removal from office is simply an OPTION, of multiple options, that can be considered by Congress in order to reach such ends. But notice the use of the most important word: OPTION.

It is, and always will be, an option. That exists to be true whether you approve of it, support it, disagree with it, refuse to accept it or otherwise.

Their constitutional duty is to uphold the constitution, not to remove from office. Removal from office is an option that can be considered, but is not a mandatory one nor the only one. To declare it as such or try and pass it off as such shows a gross misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Great, since you're as smart as Kelly, I'll ask the same question:

What happens is a president is impeached and convicted of lesser offenses?

[Kelly Rupert]

59. First, there is no clear distinction

between "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "lesser" offenses. Realistically, it's simply whatever the House decides is impeachable.

Secondly, if a President is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, the Constitution demands their removal. That's what "shall" means. Even if the House decides to impeach for unpaid parking tickets and the Senate convicts, then he shall be removed. That's what impeachment is.

[BuyingThyme]

66. Wow! That's just fascinating.

You're writing your own Constitution.

BTW: What is "impeachable"?

[MonkeyFunk]

67. SOMEBODY here is

but it's not Kelly Rupert.

[BuyingThyme]

73. Thank goodness you're arrived.

Well, now that you've stated your position, agreeing with Kelly that there is no impeachment standard (the one which doesn't appear in the constitution), please let us know how Congress is supposed to decide whether a president should be removed from office under Article II, Section 4, or if he should just receive a parking ticket.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. That's Easy. I Don't Mind Teaching You About The Constituion Further. Here Ya Go:

First, let me start off by saying that there is no real decision made to remove from office since if successfully impeached/convicted, he would then automatically be removed.

But putting that aside, if you meant how is Congress to decide if it's worthy to convict or impeach to begin with, that equally easy: They simply say so. It is up to their discretion to choose such action based on evidence and present it as a whole to Congress itself. If enough members of Congress buy into the crime and evidence, pass it forward to the Senate and enough Senators agree with such crime (2/3rd's vote present) as to convict on such crimes, than the impeachment as a whole is successful and the person is removed from office.

Choosing what action to take, i.e. if impeachment/conviction is warranted, is solely up to the discretion, discussion and votes of Congress.

If you need any further help let me know. I don't mind helping! :hi:

[BuyingThyme]

76. Where did they get that power of discretion?

Did you just... make it up?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. From The Constitution. And This Is Becoming Way Beyond Silly.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you have such little knowledge of the Constitution and its impeachment clause, after being on DU for so long.

[Kelly Rupert]

82. Me too, actually.

BT keeps asking really basic questions, and then asking if we're "making it up."

[BuyingThyme]

95. Only when you make things up.

[Kelly Rupert]

96. You're too funny.

[cali]

99. Interesting as this has been

in the psychology of denial, I'm not sure it's funny. It's a harmless delusion, but its begun to remind me of the President on Iraq. It's an utter refutation of reality.

[BuyingThyme]

101. Yes, anybody who read your first post knows this about you.

The next time you come barging into a thread to make a fool of yourself, maybe you should read a couple lines.

[Kelly Rupert]

103. But yet everyone who has entered this thread

claims that you are the foolish one.

[BuyingThyme]

100. Would you just explain one thing?

I know you're basically one among a herd of sheep, and that you're just going along with whatever your shepherds want you to believe.

But I also know that people like you are dangerous. I know that you are the main reason that criminals at the NSA are keeping tabs on us right now.

Just explain how you came to believe that Nancy Pelosi et al have no obligation to remove civil-officer criminals from office, as is very clearly outlined in the Constitution. Please try to explain.

Is it simply because of your follower instinct?

Do you think you're somehow different from your counterparts on the other side of the aisle who hold the exact same views, but serve different shepherds?

After all of this, I still have no idea what you think the Constitution is for.

[Kelly Rupert]

102. I've explained in great detail, repeatedly.

The Constitution does not say what you think it does.

[cali]

105. We're all part of one flock or another.

But sure, I'll answer your questions, and I hope you'll answer one of mine.
Question 1: Just explain how you came to believe that Nancy Pelosi et al have no obligation to remove civil-officer criminals from office, as is very clearly outlined in the Constitution. Please try to explain.

I do believe that the House has a MORAL obligation to investigate and the President, the veep, and a slew of others. Should they find (as I'm convinced they will) that the President and veep violated the constitution by committing high crimes and misdemeanors, they have a MORAL duty to impeach. But again, the constitution does not DEMAND that they impeach. Congress, and Congress alone, decides what constitutes an impeachable defense. Your stubborn adherence to the contrary, the Constitution absolutely,positively does not mandate impeachment. It prescribes impeachment as a solution if Congress believes the President has committed certain crimes.

Question 2: Is it simply because of your follower instinct?

Nope. My understanding of the Constitution comes from having taken an excellent Constitutional law course, from reading and from conversing with those more knowledgable than I.

Question 3: Do you think you're somehow different from your counterparts on the other side of the isle who hold the exact same views, but serve different shepherds?

Yes, I think I'm different from right wingnuts. Come to think of it, I think I'm different from zealots of any stripe.


Here's my question for you. See if you can answer it in specifics.

When you say that I'm dangerous, what do you mean? Dangerous in what way precisely? What on earth do you mean when you say that: "I know that you are the main reason that criminals at the NSA are keeping tabs on us right now."?? Do you have any idea how loony that sounds?

Finally, I think the Constitution is foundation of our legal system.

edited to add: Sorry Kelly. I meant to respond to some questions to me from BT. I have no idea how I managed to screw that up.

[Kelly Rupert]

108. Oh, it's okay. I'm sure the NSA intercepted it and mixed it up.

[cali]

109.

I'm dying to hear why lil ol me is the reason the NSA is doing warrentless spying.

[Kelly Rupert]

110. Well, you know, because

you've taken a course on Constitutional law. We such people are educated and dangerous. In order to avoid drawing the NSA's suspicion, you need to spend your time posting totally batshit legal theories to throw them off the trail. That's the only way to convince them we're all a bunch of harmless buffoons.

BT, we salute you for your selfless quest to preserve our anonymity.

[cali]

107. BT, for the answers to your questions,

please see my post 105. I accidentally sent it to Kelly.

[BuyingThyme]

91. There's something called an impeachment clause? Where is it?

I learn so much from you and Kelly.

[Kelly Rupert]

94. The impeachment clauses are

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
and
Article 2, Section 4.

If you're just saying "the impeachment clause" in the singular, then you're referring to Article 2, Section 4. Since you've repeatedly referred to it (or, more properly, to your idiosyncratic reading of it), I'm not sure what your question is intended to mean.

Either way, I'm glad you're starting to learn about what the Constitution actually says.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. Your question

shows how little understanding of the constitution you have.

Congress doesn't "decide" whether a president should be removed under Article II. If the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, the President is removed from office. It's all right there in the constitution - parking tickts don't apply.

As to HOW the House decides whether or not to impeach? They vote.

There IS no standard for impeachment - it's a political process, not a legal one.

[BuyingThyme]

156. I love the way people like you have been brainwashed into repeating

the mantra, "It's a political process."

The fact that it is a political process has no bearing on whether or not it is a legal process (a process of law).

Now, I know this makes absolutely no sense to you -- probably because you're wondering how the Constitution of the United states could somehow be relevant to the laws of the United States -- but what if you were to take a moment to wonder for what purpose the Constitution was written in the first place.

And what if you were to wonder (1) why there was an impeachment standard written right into the Constitution, (2) why you need to ignore it, and (3) why it was included in the context of what you and others insist only goes to the question of punishment.

[Kelly Rupert]

85. How do they decide? They vote.

Impeachment is a political process, and as such the decision whether or not to impeach is made at the discretion of Congress.

Oh, and Congress can't issue parking tickets, by the way. That would be the mandate of police forces, which fall under the Executive branch.

[BuyingThyme]

97. But you're trying to argue that the clause in question is there to

let us know what the punishment is in cases of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

How did you get so far from that?

[Kelly Rupert]

98. No, I'm not.

The clause in question is there to let us know what the effect of a conviction for impeachment is. The high crimes and misdemeanors business is a clarifier, explaining the conditions under which impeachment is appropriate. However, since the House has sole power of impeachment--a wholly political act--it is up to the House to decide when to and when not to impeach.

Here, think about it this way: If impeachment were simply a legal mandate--that is, if the decision whether to impeach or not was set in the stone of the Constitution--then every case of impeachment would therefore be a Constitutional question. This means that the decision for the House to impeach--or not to impeach--would therefore fall under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court--meaning that every impeached officer would be able to immediately appeal his impeachment to the Supreme Court. Do you recall President Clinton doing this after he was impeached? No, of course not. Because impeachment is a political act, and the House has the sole power of impeachment. When the House votes to impeach, it is then ipso facto Constitutional.

Have you ever taken a course in Constitutional law? I would recommend it. Your local community college may offer one. If it doesn't, taking a course as a non-degree-seeking student at your state college may be affordable and edifying. You seem interested in the subject.

[BuyingThyme]

104. Wow, you really shouldn't have brought up the question about

taking a course in Constitutional law. Particularly not after you proved you don't understand the concept of impeachment as outlined in the Constitution.

Let's take you to school:

The "impeachment clause" was intended as a supplementary security (beyond indictment) to assure the good behavior of public officers. The phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to attempts to subvert the Constitution.

The framers included this language because they believed the criminal courts did not have the ability to deal with such offenses, and the Supreme Court, with one small exception, has been removed from the process for good reason (contrary to that stuff you made up about them having to get involved).

Your overarching position -- the one which says there is no obligation to impeach -- is no different than a position that there is no obligation to indict. You've created a lesser (or non-) standard for the very people who have sworn to protect the Constitution, and a higher standard for the likes of John Ashcroft.

I don't understand it.

[Kelly Rupert]

106. This is kind of amusing.

Impeachment and indictment are wholly different acts. Indictment is a criminal process. Impeachment is a political one. The fact that you can't tell them apart is shocking, to say the least.

What didn't you understand about the SC? Are you of the opinion that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over questions of Constitutionality? Have you ever taken any legal classes whatsoever?

[BuyingThyme]

111. Look what you just learned:

You just learned that Congress is a political body.

Now, why do you suppose the Framers decided to add the impeachment clause (as a political animal) to the Constitution in their effort to supplement the criminal process in hopes of guarding against great and dangerous offenses to the Constitution?

It kind of begs another question (which is the only question we've been addressing): Why is this supplement to the criminal process not a duty, as is the criminal process itself?

Or do you similarly believe that people in the Justice Department (on down) do not have a duty or obligation to enforce criminal law (as you believe the people in Congress don't have a duty or obligation to protect the Constitution as outlined in the impeachment clause)?

[cali]

113. C'mon, BT

I answered your questions. Please, please tell me why you think the NSA warrentless spying is because of me. Inquiring minds and all that.

[Kelly Rupert]

115. There is no binding legal duty because

the question of impeachment, as a political process, is left to the discretion of the House. Were it intended to be a binding legal process, it would be left to the courts, whose job is to decide legality and Constitutionality.

Impeachment is not a "supplement" to the criminal process. The criminal process is a matter for the Judicial branch. I can see how you'd be confused, but they're as different as different can be.

And I'll ask my question again: Do you believe the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over Constitutional questions?

[BuyingThyme]

120. Yes, impeachment, according to James Madison,

is intended to act as a supplement to indictment (the criminal process). Don't take my word for it, take a class in Constitutional law.

Second, I KNOW the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over questions of impeachment (less one member presiding over presidential impeachment). That does not mean the Supreme Court in general does not have jurisdiction over Constitutional questions. Nice try though.

However, some (I think Judge Nixon included) have tried to appeal questions of impeachment to the Supreme Court, so the question is still open in the minds of some.

[Kelly Rupert]

124. First, you're equivocating on the meaning of "supplement."

Impeachment is a wholly seperate process, and simply because it is also intended to stop lawbreaking does not mean that it operates under similar processes. It is not a legal process, and thus there is no mandate.

Secondly, you are correct that the SC does not have jurisdiction over impeachment. You are also correct that they have jurisdiction over Constitutional questions. Do you know what that entails? The answer: that the question of whether impeachment is mandated is not a Constitutional question.

Yes, that is correct. The decision to impeach is not one regarding what the Constitution mandates. You have just, in your own words, described exactly how you are wrong.

[BuyingThyme]

128. I'm in good company.

You're now in disagreement with James Madison and Jonathan Turley.

Mason thought he was providing a "supplementary security" to indictment which would protect the Constitution from high crimes and misdemeanors (or, as George Mason called them, "great and dangerous offenses" to the Constitution which weren't otherwise covered).

Turley seems to have a similar take on it.

[cali]

131. You could well be right about Mason's intentions.

I don't know. I do know that whatever his intentions, and Turley also knows, that it's not mandatory.

Imagine for a moment it was mandatory. Would that mean that anytime a House member got or had a legal opinion that the President had committed impeachable offenses, the House would be mandated to start those procedings? What President wouldn't be subjected to the initiation of impeachment?

[BuyingThyme]

132. No, the Framers intended impeachment to be used

to protect the Constitution from offenses which endangered the Constitution. And the members of Congress take an oath to protect the Constitution.

That's it. That's the whole thing.

Read it over and over and over and over.

[Kelly Rupert]

144. I never contested that.

What I contest, and which you have not yet disproven, is that impeachment is intended to be a legally-binding mandate in the same manner in which the criminal process is. Let me repeat: just because something is designed to have a supplementary purpose does not mean it is intended to operate in an analogous fashion, a distinction which Mr. Madison, Mr. Turley, and everyone else in this thread understands, but which is lost on you.

I also note that you didn't bother addressing the legal dead-end you wandered into there re: the Supreme Court. I'd like to see you wiggle out of that one.

[BuyingThyme]

146. I haven't said anything about any legally-binding mandates.

In fact I wouldn't use the word mandate because it's little more than a semantic circus which can be twisted in opposite directions.

As far as impeachment, and the duties of Congress being analogous to criminal and civil law, it's very so. In fact, the officers of criminal law take the same exact oath (not necessarily the same in words, but the same affirmation under the Constitution). It's the same oath I once took.

In my view, your view of the Constitution makes quaint all of our arguments in regards to Pukes being derelict in their duties to provide checks, balances, and the like. Your view seems to free Congress of any responsibilities.

On the Supreme Court, I don't know what you're driving at. The Constitution makes the Court's role extremely clear when it comes to impeachment.

[cali]

112. Not that it'll do any good, but let me ask again, would

you mind providing one Constitutional expert who'll agree with your interpretation. And don't forget to answere my question as to why you think the NSA is pursuing warrantless evesdropping because of moi.

[BuyingThyme]

114. I already covered the first part. Are you asking for another name?

On the second part, the only protection we have right now from Bush and the NSA is the impeachment clause. It is the duty of Congress to impeach this President, but many people here (at DU) and elsewhere are following their shepherd in an effort to support her decision not to protect the Constitution (to take impeachment off the table).

The Constitution was written to protect me, and I'm being screwn by people who do nothing but come up with excuses for burning it.

[Kelly Rupert]

116. Mr. Turley did not actually claim it was a legal mandate to impeach.

Secondly, the NSA is spying on us because we on DU are going to destroy the Constitution, which is all that is protecting us from them spying on us? *whistles*

[BuyingThyme]

118. The oath may or may not be a legal mandate,

depending on your definition of legal mandate.

Turley certainly understands that it is the sworn duty of Congress to impeach this President.

I don't understand the second part of your post.

[Kelly Rupert]

119. So it depends on what the definition is "is" is.

Secondly, he doesn't.

Thirdly, the second part of my post is simply a rewording of your frankly unhinged opinion that the NSA is spying on us because of the people who disagree with you.

[BuyingThyme]

121. I say the NSA is spying on us because the people

who disagree with me actually believe that Congress does not have a duty to stop them.

That's the whole point of this thread in a nutshell.

[cali]

122. And I say I've never seen such

convoluted thinking or so many logical fallacies emanate from one person since, well, since never.

[BuyingThyme]

125. Give me one example.

I'm willing to bet that you don't know what a fallacy is.

Let's watch:

[cali]

127. Go look at your posts

arguing that the Constitution mandates impeachment. That, Madam, is a fallacy; an argument predicated upon an erroneous understanding. Clear enough for you.

Baa.

[BuyingThyme]

129. I was right. You really don't know what a fallacy is.

But if you go and read about fallacies, be sure to come back to this thread so you can try to find one.

[cali]

133. Fallacy:

an argument using false or illogical reasoning. I was exactly right. Sorry, you really are wacked.

[cali]

117. Turley would either laugh his ass off

at your interpretation of his opinion re impeachment or gasp in disbelief. He most certainly did not back up your interpretation, and if you think he did, I triple dog dare you to email him this entire thread and pointblank ask if you're right.

Not only that, but you're wrong on impeachment being the only remedy for NSA's unlawful spying, and come the new Congress, one of the first things Senator Leahy and others are tackling, is that issue.

Now, instead of studiously ignoring it, tell me:

WHY YOU THINK THE NSA SPYING PROGRAM IS BECAUSE OF ME.

You said it. You should explain it.

[BuyingThyme]

123. Actually, I didn't say that, but I'll explain what I said again.

People like you sheepishly support Nancy Pelosi in her decision to ignore her oath of office. You support her decision not to protect the Constitution. You support her decision not to hold the President accountable as prescribed by the Constitution.

[cali]

126. Nice try:

Copied from your post:

I know that you are the main reason that criminals at the NSA are keeping tabs on us right now.

[BuyingThyme]

130. Nice try: That was not posted in response to you.

Now, what you have said is false, but not a fallacy.

This might take a while.

[cali]

135. Whatever, but I've got an idea to settle this

What if we put out a call to DU lawyers on a seperate thread, asking them if you're correct?

[BuyingThyme]

137. Call on whomever you like.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. You Really Don't Know The Answer To This? Ok, I Don't Mind Teaching You. No Problem!

All that matters is that an Impeachment makes its way through the House and then goes to the Senate. If the Senate convicts, the person who was the subject of impeachment is removed from office. That's how it works.

It works this way regardless of what the offense actually was. If the offense was one that Congress, at its discretion, considered to be an impeachable offense, and that impeachment/conviction is in fact successful through congressional process, than the person is removed, Period. The offense itself that acted as the catalyst for such events is in and of itself irrelevant afterwards.

Hope you've learned something and glad I could be of some assistance. :hi:

[Kelly Rupert]

22. All right, let's see your "legitimate Constitutional scholars."

Let's see the scholars and how often they've argued in front of the Supreme Court. Hint: A blog doesn't make you an authority. Hint the second: Neither does a J.D. If you can prove to me that the overwhelming majority of lawyers who have argued frequently before the Supreme Court share your ignorant opinions, I'll leave you alone.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. How DARE You Request A Factual Basis!

:toast:

[Kelly Rupert]

25. Let's try applying the logic all over the place!

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.
This means that the President must always be tried before the Senate. It's what "shall" means. They have to try every president, and when they do the Chief Justice presides. Failure to do so is treason.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.
Here we see that every bill must pass the House and Senate, and must then be presented to the President. Any bill which does not become law is another violation of the constitution.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Well, you see, I am 22 now. But in a thirteen years, I shall be 35. Since I shall attain the age of 35, that means that I may be President.

This is fun! It's real easy to make the Constitution say whatever you want to if you ignore clauses you find inconvenient.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuyingThyme]

34. I decided to point out your dishonesty (as if it was necessary).

In your first paragraph, you dishonestly switched the word when and the word shall. You also changed the context. You had to because honesty does not serve you.

In your second paragraph, you dishonestly equated which shall have with shall. You had to because logic is your enemy.

In your third paragraph you simply showed that you do not understand the concept of tense. You had to because you do not understand simple grammar.

And in your last paragraph, you showed that you're a child who has no interest in learning. You again showed that all of the above are what define you. You again showed me to be right.

[Kelly Rupert]

51. Right, just like you

seem to ignore the wording you find inconvenient. That was the point. Sorry you missed it.

[BuyingThyme]

68. I didn't ignore anything. As you know, I've pointed the language out,

included it, crossed out the words to demonstrate my point, and put up with your extreme dishonesty.

What did you do?

[Kelly Rupert]

84. Pointed out that you're ignoring that the wording

makes it conditional, and have answered middle-school-level questions you had asked. Has it not occured to you to ask why even on DU, your legal opinion cannot find a friendly ear?

[BuyingThyme]

27. I don't want you to leave me alone. I love exposing

people like you for what you are.

[Kelly Rupert]

52. Still waiting on those legitimate scholars.

Come on, let's seem 'em.

[BuyingThyme]

32. Hey, here's your chance to learn what a straw man is.

But let's stick with the Constitution for now.

[Kelly Rupert]

53. Yes, let's. Show me your legitimate scholars,

and how often they've argued before the Supreme Court.

[ronnykmarshall]

29. Oh dear ..

Someone woke up a widdle cwanky dis morning!

[David Zephyr]

9. BuyingThyme, I think Pelosi is not fixed in concrete on impeachment.

Once the many hearings and investigations begin once we take control of the House and Senate...and the ugly, ugly truth begins to bubble up in testimony after sworn testimony, the American public will be even more open to impeachment.

I'm with you. I believe that if the President has violated the Constitution (and he clearly has with FISA alone) then it follows that the House should impeach him regardless of whether or not the Senate would remove him from office.

Impeach.

[BuyingThyme]

13. I have to take her word for it.

[KingFlorez]

10. You have to gather the evidence first

Investigations must be done before any impeachment hearings start. The first order of business shouldn't be impeachment.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Like when the courts said Bush broke the law?

Oh, wait. That already happened.

[nini]

43. What courts said that?

And what do those courts have to do with Congressional hearings and investigations?

[BuyingThyme]

147. Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html

It's the job of the courts to interpret the Constitution.

They're got like a whole branch of government.

[nini]

148. Good try

a Policy deemed unconstitutional is NOT the same as a trial where Bush/admin are found GUIILTY like you implied.

[BuyingThyme]

154. I see. And where did I imply that?

I didn't. You made it up.

For you see, nini, it is not the job of the House to find guilt, it is their job to forward a charge. In this case, much of the applicable evidence has already been gathered and ruled on in courts of law. Specifically, Bush's actions have been ruled unconstitutional.

It is the sworn duty of Congress to protect the constitution. Nancy Pelosi has decided to crap on that oath.

[Kelly Rupert]

58. Having a program overturned is not generally considered an impeachable offense.

Were that true, we'd have to remove every single administrative head several times a year. Courts are constantly rolling back programs to conform with mandates.

[KingFlorez]

64. I'm not sure what you are talking

There haven't been any rulings proving anything.

[BuyingThyme]

149. Maybe you live in a different country than I.

You live in the one where it's just fine for the government to spy on, torture, and propagandize the citizenry.

I don't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Why Are You Twisting Things And Making Things Up? It's Quite Disingenuous.

There is nothing I have less respect for than when people twist reality with intent to deceive for sake of making the point they want.

The Constitution DOES NOT say "Congress shall impeach for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

It DOES say: "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."

There is a WORLD of difference there.

The entire OP is one hugely flawed and deceitful premise.

[BuyingThyme]

19. You don't understand your own Constitution.

Why don't you let people teach you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. What A Silly And Projective Statement.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

30. Another question for you to avoid:

What is an impeachable offense? And how does it fit into your insane interpretation of the Constitution?

No more running away to your coward place; just answer. (I'm trying to bring common phrases to the table in hopes that you might begin to understand what is being discussed.)

[Kelly Rupert]

55. Ah, the "coward place."

That must be where you're hiding all your respected, practicing Constitutional scholars.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. That's Up To The Interpretation Of Congress. It's Pretty Straightforward.

If Congress considers an act to be one of treason, bribery or another high crime or misdemeanor, they can choose to impeach. If that impeachment is successful followed by a successful conviction, the person would then be removed from office.

Glad I could help further your education on the Constitution. Thanks for asking. :hi:

[Kelly Rupert]

23. You know who I'll let teach me about the Constitution?

People who know something about it. You know who that isn't? You.

[BuyingThyme]

31. And for you too, genius:

What is an impeachable offense, and how does it fit into your creative reading of the Constitution?

[MonkeyFunk]

49. An impeachable offense

is whatever the House of Representative decides is an impeachable offense.

Not very satisfactory, but it's the truth.

[Kelly Rupert]

54. An impeachable offense is, legally,

whatever the House of Representitives decides is, no less, and no more. Similarly, what is "Constitutional" is whatever the courts decide is. Both are extremely fuzzy, rather unsatisfactory-feeling definitions, but unfortunately that's the way things work in actual Constitutional law.

[cali]

37. It's not your ignorance

that's so astounding, it's your stubborn adherence to it. You've been corrected on this page several times. You've made a claim about the interpretation of the impeachment clause. Now provide one, just one, constitutional scholar that interprets it in the same way.

[BuyingThyme]

33. Please ask somebody to help you with the grammar and English.

This is third-grade stuff.

[cali]

38. Really, what do you think you're proving

with all this flailing about. Your attacking OM over his grammar and English is just pathetic.

Now, where's that one Constitutional scholar who is in agreement with you. Provide that, and I'll most humbly beg your pardon. My only caveat is that it has to be a recognized expert.

[BuyingThyme]

39. I wasn't attacking OM for his grammar, I was attacking him

because he refuses to understand the grammar used in the Constitution. So, by your own words, you've proven yourself pathetic. Nice goin'. I love an easy mark.

ON EDIT:

I overlooked your second demand for attention:

Regardless of what a Federal Court may say about the crimes,
that's not your domain. Your domain and responsibility is
that if a President has committed a criminal act, you are
obligated to hold hearings. What I would caution members of
this body is you're establishing a precedent by not holding
hearings.

-- Professor Jonathan Turley

[cali]

42. Only someone as attached to

ignorance and as enamored by her own bizarre theories of Constitutiional Law, could conflate hearings with impeachment. Bzzzt. Wrong. Again.

The grammar is simple. Your tortured logic is pathetic. OM is correct.

[BuyingThyme]

71. Now that you've twice proved yourself "pathetic,"

and twice failed to project your sad reality on me, let's try to find out what you think impeachment actually means as outlined in the Constitution.

For instance, you've made it clear, to a certainty, that you don't believe that hearings have anything to do with impeachment. But what other things can you teach us? I'm particularly interested in things that have absolutely no ties to reality.

And, just for fun, let's repost the Turley excerpt, but this time we'll also include the two preceding paragraphs, which further stress the realities you're attempting to rewrite. Hopefully this will help you with all that messy conflation:

In fact, as you recall, in the hearing that we had
on impeachment, one of the great issues was: can private
conduct fall under the impeachment standard? And we took
different views on that point, but I think that there's no
question it would. And also the question of what the
President's position on the crime would be--is a little bit
ambiguous. I don't see how you can argue that this does not
violate the statute, but he's argued that regardless of what
the statute may say--he makes one statutory argument, that
"I actually satisfied the statute," which is pretty darn
weak. But then his backup is, "Whatever the statute may
have said, I trump it with my inherent authority."

That's precisely the issue impeachment goes to.

Regardless of what a Federal Court may say about the crimes,
that's not your domain. Your domain and responsibility is
that if a President has committed a criminal act, you are
obligated to hold hearings. What I would caution members of
this body is you're establishing a precedent by not holding
hearings.

And if you want to get really out there, you can just read it:

Nadler and Turley on Impeachment: Excerpted from Hearings Transcript
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/7068/print

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. How Silly.

It is blatantly apparent in that quote that the obligation he speaks of is an opinionated moral one, not a constitutional one. It is his opinion that they are obligated to do such, but it is still his OPINION, not a constitutional mandated action.

If it were a mandated action, he would've said so. But he didn't. Instead, he referenced setting a precedent that he did not think would be beneficial. That statement shows quite clearly that he agrees that such action is solely left to the discretion of Congress, but that he feels strongly that the right precedent be set and hearings held. But that is all just his opinion.

I actually agree that when crimes are committed there is a moral obligation to hold hearings and take whatever action necessary. But I recognize that such an act is not mandatory, that's it's left up to the discretion of Congress itself, and that my feelings on it are just that: My feelings; an opinion.

All you did by posting that was bolster our case even further and mounted further evidence against yours. I'm wondering if you'll fail to see this reality as well.

[BuyingThyme]

75. Again we come back to the word SHALL.

You believe they wrote the following Article II paragraph because they needed to indicate what action can be taken against a president who commits treason and the like. Specifically, you think they put that paragraph in there to explain that the appropriate punishment is removal.

But I know that paragraph was written to outline an obligation of Congress. The Framers wanted to make it perfectly clear not what the punishment is, but what appropriate process is in regards to officers who commit treason, bribery, and the like. The president shall be removed on impeachment and conviction.

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.

Lets look at some more language. This is from up there in Article I:

Judgment in the cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.

Now, why do you suppose they would write an additional section down in Article II to say exactly the same thing that they already said in Article I?

They didn't. They knew what they were doing.

What..oh...wait, before you respond...

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

They mentioned "the president" right before they mentioned the applicable punishment. Just more Constitutional oversight? Lazy repetition?

No. They knew what they were doing. They were making it very clear.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. wow...

It's been pointed out to you repeatedly:

IF the President is impeached and convicted, he SHALL be removed from office.

That, however, does NOT say the congress has an affirmative obligation to impeach him.

I'm getting embarrassed for you.

[BuyingThyme]

92. I know, you're among the sheep who actually believe

that Congressmen take an oath to protect... ummm. What do they do again?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. This Has Got To Be The Saddest And Silliest Intepretation I've Ever Seen.

:rofl:

You are too much. Thanks for the laugh!

(And for the record, your premise is wrong on every possible level. It is quite funny to watch.)

And those constitutional scholars you speak so highly of? Believe me, they'd be laughing hysterically as well.

[BuyingThyme]

93. What interpretation is that?

Why do you have to be vague to the point of dishonest?

Yes, Jonathan Turley is laughing at you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

142. Your Interpretations Of The Impeachment Clauses.

They are some of the most warped, inaccurate, illogical, non-factual, disillusioned and way off the mark interpretations of a solidly logical document I've ever come across; anywhwere; ever; period.

And I can't help now thinking; after reading your continually stubborn yet inaccurate replies in this thread, that you don't truly believe in your position. I can't help thinking that you are perpetuating this just for show at this point. I can't believe that anyone could honestly continue to hold onto such a position with whole-hearted belief.

Please, just be honest. You're just playin around right?

[Kelly Rupert]

83. You realize that the word "on" makes that conditional, right?

I mean, you're seriously the only person who holds that inane opinion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Matters Not. Either Way You Were Still Completely Inaccurate In Your Assessment.

I give you credit, however, for not being embarrassed to hold onto such a blatantly flawed position so strongly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. You Claim It Third Grade Stuff, Yet You Still Have Failed To Comprehend It Thus Far.

So why you're putting yourself down in such ways is a bit perplexing.

Several here have pointed out factually that it is you, in fact, who has completely misinterpreted the "third grade" impeachment clause. The fact that you choose to hold onto your grammatically, factually and realistically wrong interpretation of it is quite astounding in the face of explanations you've been given.

[eyesroll]

35. The Constitution does not say "Congress shall impeach for treason."

Find that phrase for me.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html



Section Four
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.

This is what's known as a CONDITION.
IF the President, etc., is impeached and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, then HE SHALL be removed from ofice.

Removal from office is conditional upon being impeached and convicted.

It's the same as saying:
A citizen SHALL be jailed upon arrest and conviction of theft, assault or unlawful entry.

Does that mean arrest and conviction are mandatory? Even with strong evidence? NO. It just means that IF a citizen is arrested and convicted, THEN the jail becomes mandatory.


Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress SHALL impeach for any reason.

(And while you're at it, please let me know when Cindy Sheehan suddenly became a constitutional authority.)

[BuyingThyme]

36. Yes, the Constitution says the president "shall"

be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

What happens if the president is impeached for lesser crimes?

[Kelly Rupert]

56. It says no such thing.

It says the president shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction. Big difference.
(And your second question is actually amusing in the ignorance it reveals.)

[dailykoff]

40. I think "shall" is indicative; "may," "might," and "should"

are subjunctive. If I remember correctly from my long-ago Latin studies, "shall" and "will" are used for the indicative (fairly definite) future, and the others are used for the subjunctive (indefinite, hypothetical, or wished-for) future.

So I think Cicero would side with Cindy on this one.

:)

[BuyingThyme]

41. In the Constitution, SHALL is law.

[cali]

44. Correct.

As in: If impeached and convicted s/he MUST be removed from office. How much fucking simpler could it get?

Section. 4.

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.

[dailykoff]

46. So it seems. On the subject of impeachment

I heard an interview on Pacifica yesterday with Elizabeth Holtzman, who just published this interesting book:

The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citzens
info: http://www.impeachbushbook.com/

Her argument was, it isn't up to Congress to start proceedings, it's up to US to MAKE Congress start them, by making them investigate the crimes committed by this admin., specifically, breaking wiretapping laws, fraud (run-up to war), dereliction of sworn duty (Katrina), and a 4th one I forget.

[cali]

45. Oh no he wouldn't.

Read it again. To what does that "shall" apply?

Section. 4.

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.

[dailykoff]

47. Are you kidding? Cicero?

Look up the Cataline conspiracy sometime. Cicero was Cindy Sheehan in a toga. :)

[cali]

48. OK, sounds like fun.

I'll do that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. Except that the Constitution doesn't say that "Congress shall impeach for treason, bribery, or other

high crimes and misdemeanors."

Perhaps you should read the Constitution.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Where exactly in the Constitution does it say "Congress shall impeach

for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Can you site the Article and section?

[Kelly Rupert]

57. It doesn't.

It says the President shall be removed upon impeachment and conviction, which is a conditional that BT doesn't quite understand.

[BuyingThyme]

65. That is not exactly how it reads. I'm just trying to explain

what it means. But there are some horribly dishonest and nasty people here and I'm having a great time allowing them to make fools of themselves.

[MonkeyFunk]

69. oh, knock it off

EVERYBODY here disagrees with you, and has made good arguments, using the actual text of the constitution itself, to show how wrong you are.

You are wrong. Dead wrong. Very wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.

Being nasty to everybody who points it out doesn't help your case. It makes you look insane.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Yup.

[BuyingThyme]

136. Knock it off. You're insane. And way dead wronger.

[Kelly Rupert]

86. I'm sure once you're used to being a clown, everyone else looks silly n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Then you should start out with what it actually say, not what you WANT it to say

Section 4. 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.

It mean that the officer must be removed if they are impeached and convicted of the stated offences. What isn't clear about this?

[porphyrian]

77. She's our representative. She'll do what we demand of her.

Her statements were political maneuvering in an environment with an irresponsible corporate media manipulating public opinion for this criminal administration. Take Pelosi's public statements with a grain of salt, we're all on the same side.

[cali]

89. Trying to correct you

on your breathtakingly wrong interpretatin of the Constitution is the very definition of banging one's head against a brick wall.

[BuyingThyme]

134. You got the second part right.

[cali]

138. Here, read this. I doubt it will help your

delusional belief that impeachment is mandated, but it's well written, and to the point.

From the piece:

"There is nothing in the Constitution that compels the House to act. Impeachment, therefore, is an option for the House to be exercised at their discretion."

http://www.theperfectsystem.net/articles/Alan_Adaschik/aa_102306.htm

[BuyingThyme]

139. Here, read this... I just wrote it:

The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[cali]

140. What the heck does that have to

with anything? Yes, they are bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. So what? The Constitution doesn't MANDATE impeachment. Did you even read that article?

[BuyingThyme]

141. What are they bound to do if not to protect the

Constitution by the means available?

[cali]

143. I'm done, BT

Believe what you want to believe.

Happy Holidays.

[BuyingThyme]

145. Have a great holiday, Cali!

:hi:

[lukasahero]

150. You are using quotes to represent what Speaker Pelosi

has said. Care to provide a reference for that?

[BuyingThyme]

151. Somebody has to explain to you that she didn't really say

she has the sole power?

[lukasahero]

152. No, someone has to explain to me why they are lying about Speaker Pelosi

on a Democratic forum.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lukasahero]

155. Get over yourself. eom

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

157. I'm going to lock this.

The thread has deteriorated into a round of sniping & personal attacks.
Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

Please read DU civility rules here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html


best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator