elfs: (Default)
[personal profile] elfs
The tragedy that is our current executive leads me to despair, but I want everyone to consider what would happen if Bush really were impeached. Here's the current line of succession:

  • President George W. Bush
  • Vice President Dick Cheney
  • Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
  • President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd
  • Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
  • Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
  • Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
  • Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
  • Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
  • Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
  • Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters
  • Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
  • Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
  • Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson

Date: 2007-01-13 02:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gromm.livejournal.com
And we all know that Cheney will pardon Bush.

Isn't that a nice thought?

Date: 2007-01-13 04:30 am (UTC)

Date: 2007-01-13 05:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] darrelx.livejournal.com
just a nit-pick: "Impeached" does not mean "Removed from office"

It's a common mistake... but no sense in continuing the confusion.

For example, Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office... that would be an additional step after impeachment... one that was *not* pursued, in fact. Impeachment is merely a finding that testimony was false.

Date: 2007-01-13 05:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] polydad.livejournal.com
In the event Congress does grow a spine, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales are likely to be named on the same indictment as Bush. I don't know much about Paulson; Gates is as morally bankrupt as the rest of 'em but hasn't had a chance to kill anybody yet.

I could deal with President Pelosi. Not who I'd vote for in an open and honest election, but she's definitely better than any of the rethuglicans avaiable.

best,

Joel

Date: 2007-01-13 05:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lionman.livejournal.com
Go, Margaret Spellings, Go! ;-)

Date: 2007-01-13 05:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] darrelx.livejournal.com
Just in case you or your readers need a reference... so this doesn't become a bickering-fest: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impeach is the most complete and accurate legal definition of the word I could find online.

(Also, the MSN Encarta definition is completely wrong... which furthers the confusion).

Date: 2007-01-13 02:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rfreebern.livejournal.com
Clever use of "grow a spine" there. Bravo.

Date: 2007-01-13 04:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] polydad.livejournal.com
Your site says you're in New Hampshire, which makes it impractical to invite you by for dinner. I shall wave an eggplant in your general direction.

If you ever get out to LA, give me a holler.

best,

Joel. Not a pirate, but sailing a brigantine today.

Date: 2007-01-18 04:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jordan179.livejournal.com
In the event Congress does grow a spine, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales are likely to be named on the same indictment as Bush.

What charge are you envisioning being brought against Bush, or any of the others? FYI, being a "Rethuglican" isn't an impeachable offense. Nor is ineptitude in war.

Now, you could try to construe "high crimes and misdemeanors" as meaning "almost anything I feel like," but historically it has referred to specific violations of the law. And, to follow your prescription, it would have to refer to specific violations of the law committed by ALL the persons on your list.

Of course, a very vague charge might stick against a VERY unpopular President, such as Bush is right now. But are you sure you want to set this precedent? At some point in the future -- possibly in the next Presidency -- you might have a Democratic President and Republican Congress, at which point the temptation on the part of the Republicans to do the exact same thing by way of retaliation would be a rather obvious one.

And no, Clinton wasn't impeached just for "lying about sex." He was impeached for perjury in a court case in which he was being charged with sexual harassment. Now, if you want to propose that Presidents should be above the law, that's another issue, but one logically inconsistent with your desire to impeach Bush, unless you feel that "all's fair" in politics and that a party should go after its enemies By Any Means Necessary ...

... but along that path lies Augustus.

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 31st, 2025 12:00 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios