President Bush to be impeached by IL General assembly

[Dr Grump]

Gee I thought Democrats were "above all that pettiness"?

Hell no! They're politicians!!!

 

[Dr Grump]

We are supposed to ignore all the proven corruption and illegal actions of the Clinton administration.

No way. As an aside, care to list ALL?

 

[jillian]

Then that is the fault of the voters. It is not the responsiblity of the IL General Assembly to interject itself into the responsibilities of a more supreme body of government.

Aren't you one of the States' rights guys?

As long as the IL General Assembly is acting legally, I think they had the right to do what they did. If nothing comes from it, that's fine, but they've certainly made their point.

And how is it the fault of voters? The Republicans didn't run on a platform of "no matter what Bush may have done we're not going to say anything and just keep going.....".

 

[theHawk]

Good... impeach Bush, remove him from office...and put a real conservative in there - Cheney.

Democrats are geniuses.

 

[Stephanie]

Good... impeach Bush, remove him from office...and put a real conservative in there - Cheney.

Democrats are geniuses.

I'm sure you've heard Hawk.. Once they get Bush, their going after Cheney, Condi, Rummey and throw them all in jail. And then their going to install Nancy Pelosi as President...

 

[archangel]

No... if he's done the things he's alleged to have done. He has not acted legally or within his privilege.

Tell me... do you know if you've been wiretapped?

Neither does anyone else. Because if you have or anyone else has, it's certainly been done without the oversight of the FISA courts.

I could care less if I were tapped...they would really get bored fast...talking to the kids and grankids...chewing out my congressional and local reps,calling for show times,reservations,auto part prices etc etc...who cares tap away!

 

[jillian]

I could care less if I were tapped...they would really get bored fast...talking to the kids and grankids...chewing out my congressional and local reps,calling for show times,reservations,auto part prices etc etc...who cares tap away!

Guess you think the Constitution is optional?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Kagom]

I'm sure you've heard Hawk.. Once they get Bush, their going after Cheney, Condi, Rummey and throw them all in jail. And then their going to install Nancy Pelosi as President...

Pardon my bluntness and ignorance: who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?

Also, I don't care if they impeach Bush. Cheney'd be up to bat. I say just wait for 2008. It's not THAT far off.

 

[archangel]

Guess you think the Constitution is optional?

the point of my comment was: If you are doing normal everyday things then no one is going to tap your phone or break in your door! Only those who have something to hide would be concerned...I have nothing to hide so I will live a peaceful and free from investigation life! :cof:

 

[Stephanie]

Pardon my bluntness and ignorance: who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?

Also, I don't care if they impeach Bush. Cheney'd be up to bat. I say just wait for 2008. It's not THAT far off.

:teeth:

 

[jillian]

the point of my comment was: If you are doing normal everyday things then no one is going to tap your phone or break in your door! Only those who have something to hide would be concerned...I have nothing to hide so I will live a peaceful and free from investigation life! :cof:

Whethr one lives a "normal" life or not, the Constitution protects against government insanity.

Hometime!

Laterz!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Aren't you one of the States' rights guys?

As long as the IL General Assembly is acting legally, I think they had the right to do what they did. If nothing comes from it, that's fine, but they've certainly made their point.

I have never claimed to be a states' rights guy. I'm for strong central government restricted to federal matters. As for the legality of this. I think that the USSC will strike it down, should anyone challenge. Jefferson's Rules of the House is not the law.

And I wouldn't care if anyone was listening in on my conversations. I'm not calling Al Qaeda and they aren't calling me. Hope the NSA is reading this. If FISA were effective and not worried about protecting the rights of those that want to blow shit up, then FISA wouldn't have to be bypassed, in accordance to law. Loophole's can work both ways.

 

[jillian]

I have never claimed to be a states' rights guy. I'm for strong central government restricted to federal matters. As for the legality of this. I think that the USSC will strike it down, should anyone challenge. Jefferson's Rules of the House is not the law.

I think that what you think are "federal matters" are a bit different from what I think are "federal matters". I don't think personal morality is a "federal matter", but I think student loans and a fair minimum wage are. And, yes, I suspect Bush's Court would never sustain the IL action.

And I wouldn't care if anyone was listening in on my conversations. I'm not calling Al Qaeda and they aren't calling me. Hope the NSA is reading this. If FISA were effective and not worried about protecting the rights of those that want to blow shit up, then FISA wouldn't have to be bypassed, in accordance to law. Loophole's can work both ways.

You should care. Government using surveillance as a political tool has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. With the FISA courts, you could ask for a warrant up to, I think, 72 hours after you started the surveillance and "exigent circumstances" has always been an exception to even the standard warrant requirement. The ONLY reason to avoid a FISA warrant is because they don't want you to know who they're listening to. Not Constitutional under ANY set of circumstances. And, btw, FISA declined, I think, at most one or two warrant requests out of tens of thousands. How would that interfere with the WOT? It doesn't..... it only controls arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional acts of the Executive.

 

[jillian]

Pardon my bluntness and ignorance: who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?

http://democraticleader.house.gov/ :halo:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Government using surveillance as a political tool has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Of course it has to do with fighting terrorism. You do your party great injury speaking in this insane fashion.

 

[jillian]

Of course it has to do with fighting terrorism. You do your party great injury speaking in this insane fashion.

Did I say surveillance had nothing to do with the WOT? Nooooooooooooo

I said using it for "political purposes" didn't.

Now go back and see the rest of the point I made.

 

[Kagom]

the point of my comment was: If you are doing normal everyday things then no one is going to tap your phone or break in your door! Only those who have something to hide would be concerned...I have nothing to hide so I will live a peaceful and free from investigation life! :cof:

I just don't like people thinking they can know everything I'm doing. I'm a paranoid person by nature, so it doesn't help me out if I think the government is spying on me. Granted I don't do anything or promote illegal activity, my paranoia goes from 5 to 11 on the scale of 1 to 10 (yes, I know, but I'm intentionally exaggerating).

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I don't think personal morality is a "federal matter",

A vein just popped in my forehead. Personal morality is a federal matter, when it breaks the law. I love how Democrats won't let this die. I would be perfectly willing to forget Clinton if it weren't for Democrats trying to wedge this into everything that Bush does. It is always said that, "At least Clinton just got a blowjob." Sorry to break your heart, but that blow job was illegal. Check Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is the law that makes it illegal for an officer of the United States Military to engage in fraternization with those under his/her command. Since Clinton was the Commander-in-Chief of the military, his actions were illegal. It was a federal matter of the highest regard. If it wasn't, why did he continue to lie, even when caught beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think that what you think are "federal matters" are a bit different from what I think are "federal matters". I don't think personal morality is a "federal matter", but I think student loans and a fair minimum wage are. And, yes, I suspect Bush's Court would never sustain the IL action.

What do you think the first two amendments are about if not personal morality? What do you think the civil war amendments are if not personal morality? Or the 19th amendment? Or the 18th and 21st?

What exactly do you think personal morality is? You seem to define it very narrowly.

 

[Dr Grump]

Check Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is the law that makes it illegal for an officer of the United States Military to engage in fraternization with those under his/her command. Since Clinton was the Commander-in-Chief of the military, his actions were illegal.

and he got found guilty under Article 134 of the UCMJ?