Bush and Cheney Impeachment round table.

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
In our Westminster system of government it is up to the ruling party, popular or not, to call for referendums. In N.P. they would never do one in order to remove an unpopular elected official. The prime minister could force the resignation of such an official instead, or if the whole party is unpopular they could call an early general election. However the rulers of N.P. like power too much and prefer to stay in office for the full 5 year term allowed.

The opposition can force a vote of no confidence if they can muster the votes. It rarely happens though.

A referendum is never used (in the UK at least) as a election tool and can only be called by the Government. Governments hate them, mostly for good reason.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That you believe it is "evident" is more than sufficient to discredit you altogether.

Are you even capable of presenting an argument on its merits? Defend him with evidence if you want, but to insist I'm wrong and you're right without any points is both callow and craven.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dong, Governors in some/most U.S. states can be recalled via a petition and vote provision in their state constitutions. At the national level, there's none that I'm aware of. And like SpeedoGuy I think such a provision would be disruptive.

I understand that, isn't that what I wrote?...I also think it could be disruptive.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I understand that, isn't that what I wrote?...
Mostly yes but it was prefaced with "I believe the procedure still exists in about 18 US states ..." and didn't mention national.

If it is actually 18 states then you know more about that than I do.:smile:
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I sometimes wonder if the current administration is trying to see how much it can get away with before it does something to put impeachment back on the table. Sort of like a dog testing the limits and strength of its leash.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Mostly yes but it was prefaced with "I believe the procedure still exists in about 18 US states ..." and didn't mention national.

From memory, things could have changed....If there was a national provision, I suspect it would have been tried already....

If it is actually 18 states then you know more about that than I do.:smile:

I had a quick check, it is still 18 (I read somewhere once it was 26 but I can't recall where):

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin

and the district.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm
 

Male Bonding etc

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
920
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
Southwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, as much as I'd like to see both B&C out, I don't see this Congress able to go anywhere with it. I think the best we can hope for is that our Senators and Representatives start at least curtailing a LITTLE of what this administration is doing.
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Are you even capable of presenting an argument on its merits? Defend him with evidence if you want, but to insist I'm wrong and you're right without any points is both callow and craven.

Yes, I am so capable. I don't believe for a moment that it would matter. For example, from what I can tell, Big Dirigible writes some of the most measured, thoughtful posts on this board, only to go largely ignored by the foaming, lockstep masses.

So I'll consider it sufficient to put a check on you by simply observing that this isn't the open-and-shut case you wish it to be.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, I am so capable.

And yet, given an invitation to demonstrate such capacity, you make excuses and wimp out. I'm (in)famous around here for citing sources; the reputation you're earning around here is quite different.

Saying you're right doesn't make it so.

I entered this thread with the assertion that the Bush administration was "obstructing the investigations that could lead to [...] convictions". Case in point: This week, White House counsel Fred Fielding ordered Harriet Miers not to appear before a House panel. The concept of executive privilege does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, nor does it appear in federal legislation. The Supreme Court first recognized a limited form of executive privilege in United States v. Nixon (1974). In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger wrote, "the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has [...] constitutional underpinnings;" then limited that privilege by stating that it does not "provid[e] an absolute privilege [...] against a subpoena".

My reading of that ruling is that while Miers may refuse to answer questions that pertain to communication with the president; she's not immune from the subpoena itself -- in other words, she was bound under the law to appear. By not appearing, she denied the House investigative panel the opportunity to ask (and have answered) questions that weren't covered by privilege, and Fred Fielding's instructions to her ran afoul of 18 USC §1512.
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
And yet, given an invitation to demonstrate such capacity, you make excuses and wimp out.

Characterize it as you wish. I've explained why I'm not going to invest time in an answer to you. Your invitation is an invitation to speak into a vacuum. No thanks.

However...

The concept of executive privilege does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, nor does it appear in federal legislation.

This means nothing. Many of the "constitutional rights" I'm willing to bet you hold dear appear nowhere in the Constitution.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger wrote, "the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has [...] constitutional underpinnings;" then limited that privilege by stating that it does not "provid[e] an absolute privilege [...] against a subpoena".

My reading of that ruling is that while Miers may refuse to answer questions that pertain to communication with the president; she's not immune from the subpoena itself -- in other words, she was bound under the law to appear.

Your argument contains its own refutation, as your reading is careless and haphazard. Burger's words can be taken, quite credibly, to mean that while executive privilege does not provide an absolute privilege against a subpoena, it may provide a limited privilege. This has not been tested. Perhaps you ought to restrain yourself from drawing conclusions in light of the fact that your readings are flawed. Which was, in fact, my original point.

And your assertion that Fielding's instructions ran afoul of 18 USC 1512 does nothing more than beg the question. If executive privilege applies, there is no violation of 1512. I understand why you think there's a problem with 1512, as you've already made up your mind. But again, the fact that you've already made up your mind is precisely my point.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My readings are not flawed. Your conclusions are flawed.

For one thing, I'm fully aware that rights can be granted by case law, which is why in the sentence immediately following your quote, I cited the case law that established executive immunity.

For another, the Tenth Amendment makes it explicit that the rights of the federal government are enumerated, as all unenumerated rights go to the states and to the people. So, for example, the right to privacy -- which is not enumerated in the Constitution -- has been recognized by the Supreme Court; but there has been no enumeration of a "limited immunity from subpoena" for the executive branch.
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
My readings are not flawed. Your conclusions are flawed.

For one thing, I'm fully aware that rights can be granted by case law, which is why in the sentence immediately following your quote, I cited the case law that established executive immunity.

For another, the Tenth Amendment makes it explicit that the rights of the federal government are enumerated, as all unenumerated rights go to the states and to the people. So, for example, the right to privacy -- which is not enumerated in the Constitution -- has been recognized by the Supreme Court; but there has been no enumeration of a "limited immunity from subpoena" for the executive branch.

What you're suggesting as the rationale for finding a privacy right isn't at all how the Court got there. You're out of your element - leave it alone.

But anyway, so what? I notice you dodge the 18 USC 1512 issue altogether. Can't say I'm surprised, because the fact that you jumped to a conclusion on the 1512 issue betrayed the fact that you'd already assumed that your premise was correct, which again, was precisely my point.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
What you're suggesting as the rationale for finding a privacy right isn't at all how the Court got there. You're out of your element - leave it alone.

Source? Justification? Rationale? Or is it once again, Heath and a mountain of evidence against the Island of Buhballs?

You're not just taking me on here, you're taking on Brad Warbiany, Robert Koons, and Thomas Tandy Lewis -- none of whom are "lefties", yet all of whom agree that the Tenth Amendment, along with the Fourth and Ninth (one person even cites the Third (!)) plays a role in the right to privacy.

But anyway, so what? I notice you dodge the 18 USC 1512 issue altogether. Can't say I'm surprised, because the fact that you jumped to a conclusion on the 1512 issue betrayed the fact that you'd already assumed that your premise was correct, which again, was precisely my point.

Honestly, I didn't even read that far. I don't have to eat the whole apple to know that it's rotten.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
That is not such an outrageous thought. Parliamentary governments have "no confidence" referendums in the middle of their prime minister terms and boot the bums out if they don't like them.
However, such a system can't be grafted onto the US without doing terrific damage to separation of powers. The executive (meaning the head of government, rather than the head of state) in the Westminster parliamentary system is a subset of the legislative branch, and it remains, in certain limited ways, subservient to it. That is, of course, not so in the presidential system. The President's powers in no way derive from Congress, and Congress can't circumscribe them.

And that's not a bad thing. Looking back over more than two centuries of American history, I think it's safe to say that the country has had more genuinely bad Congresses than genuinely bad Presidents.
 

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,331
Media
108
Likes
17,265
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
I took a brief look at the Bill Moyers clip with the two men calling for a Bush/Cheney impeachment. Despite the principle of their motives to bring accountability to the Executive Branch, an impeachment proceeding would just create the ultimate gridlock in Congress.

We just need to wait and let the momentum against this administration build. I suspect that when the next administration emerges (assuming it's a Democrat in the White House), then many of the illegalities of the Bush/Cheney regime will come to light. Criminal charges can still be brought up against their administration even if they're out of office. Any attempts at accountability in the near future, beyond Congressional subpoenas, will just derail the nation's agenda in this next year.

Justice will come in or after 2008
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Source? Justification? Rationale? Or is it once again, Heath and a mountain of evidence against the Island of Buhballs?

Honestly, I didn't even read that far. I don't have to eat the whole apple to know that it's rotten.

I'm just saying privacy wasn't "found" in the Constitution in the way you've suggested.

As to the "rotten" apple - well, how convenient. You brought it up, you got your ears pinned back in short order, and now you can't defend it. So you take a shot instead.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Pinned back with what? You haven't provided a single (what's smaller than a "shred"? A confetto?) of substance for your agendum. There's no pin.
 

findfirefox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Posts
2,014
Media
0
Likes
34
Points
183
Age
38
Location
Portland, OR
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm just saying privacy wasn't "found" in the Constitution in the way you've suggested.

As to the "rotten" apple - well, how convenient. You brought it up, you got your ears pinned back in short order, and now you can't defend it. So you take a shot instead.

I find you a little bit irritating, but I do like people it when people get pissed off at each other, so I'm glad your here.