Residents in 2 Vermont Towns Vote to Arrest Bush and Cheney

[Paulie]

Ok, I give up.
How are these related?

You give up that quick? Did you even do a search, at least?

The Posse Comitatus Act limits the federal government from being able to deploy national guard units domestically.

In JW of 2007, the president himself now has the power to mobilize state NG units, and in the legislation it specifically mentions for the purpose of law enforcement.

I'm not even going to post a link, because you should have checked that yourself before making that post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Has the Supreme Court ruled NSPD 51 unconstitutional? That's not even a bill, that is an executive order from the president himself. How about John Warner Defense Auth. of 2007, where the president has the power to mobilize state NG units, nullifying Posse Comitatus?

I'm not saying that most of Congress shouldn't be impeached as well, as I am convinced that about 90% of it is corrupt to the bone.

But the president has the final say in whether a bill becomes law, and by him signing it into law, he should be accountable for it.

Could you quote me the exact wording in the president's oath of office?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html

The only Required part of any oath is "Affirmation" of the Constitution. Which has nothing to do with what your claiming.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not even going to post a link, because you should have checked that yourself before making that post.

I asked you a question about something you posted.
If you have a problem with someone asking you a simple question about something you posted, you're wound WAY too tight.

The Posse Comitatus Act, like any other law, is just a law -- its NOT a provision of the US constitution.
As such, it can be modified by simply passing another law.

Posse Comitatus generally prohibits federal military personnel, and units of the National Guard under federal authority, from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

If the JWDA2007 allows for federalized NG units to be deployed domestically in a law-enforcement role, then, as said authorization comes from an act of congress, it doesnt violate Posse Comitatus.

So, as I asked:
How are these related?

 

[rayboyusmc]

I would say this qualifies as Treason. The town officials should be arrested and tried for treason and Cheney should visit so that any police or citizens dumb enough to try and arrest him can also be arrested for Treason.

No, Gunny, your attitude about freedom of speech is closer to Treason against our Constitution than their vote.

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying to protect the very freedom of speech you want to deny.

When has this type of action ever happened before against a standing president?

You need to take down your craven idols of bush and cheney.

 

[Paulie]

I asked you a question about something you posted.
If you have a problem with someone asking you a simple question about something you posted, you're wound WAY too tight.

I'm admittedly wound pretty tight today. I'm hungover and have been moving for the last week and a half, and busting my ass trying to finish a job I've been on for too long already. Haven't had a break in a while.

Allow me to sincerely apologize.

The Posse Comitatus Act, like any other law, is just a law -- its NOT a provision of the US constitution.
As such, it can be modified by simply passing another law.

This is true. This one bill alone does not warrant impeachment or arrest, but it's certainly one I add to my list of reasons. The president should not have this power, and that's why the Posse Comitatus Act was created in the first place.

If the JWDA2007 allows for federalized NG units to be deployed domestically in a law-enforcement role, then, as said authorization comes from an act of congress, it doesnt violate Posse Comitatus.

For me, what it does is beg the question of why it's necessary in the first place. Why now all the sudden, does the federal government feel the need to have this power?

As a conservative, does this not irk you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm admittedly wound pretty tight today. I'm hungover and have been moving for the last week and a half, and busting my ass trying to finish a job I've been on for too long already. Haven't had a break in a while.
Allow me to sincerely apologize.

No problem.

This is true. This one bill alone does not warrant impeachment or arrest, but it's certainly one I add to my list of reasons.

The bill, at least the part you described, doesn't violate the Constitution, and it doesnt violate Posse Comitatus. How does this qualify as support for impeachment?

The president should not have this power, and that's why the Posse Comitatus Act was created in the first place.

The Posse Comitatus Act allows for Congress to grant that power, when necessary. Congress found it necessary. No laws are being broken, and the Constitution is not being violated. Not sure where the problem is.

For me, what it does is beg the question of why it's necessary in the first place. Why now all the sudden, does the federal government feel the need to have this power?
As a conservative, does this not irk you?

Perhaps -- but being "irked" and arguing that is is grounds for impeachment are different things.

 

[midcan5]

Try again, further provide us with any such Unconstitutional laws he has signed into being and then enforced AFTER the Supreme Court ruled them Unconstitutional.

Huh, do you think a criminal has to put their crime in writing for it to be a crime.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/16/wexler-cheney-impeachment-stronger-than-watergate/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Huh, do you think a criminal has to put their crime in writing for it to be a crime.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/16/wexler-cheney-impeachment-stronger-than-watergate/

That you claim the President is a criminal is utterly moronic. You have no evidence and the people that are required to act IF he were guilty have said all along he has done NOTHING to warrant any action. And they are from the opposition party.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, Gunny, your attitude about freedom of speech is closer to Treason against our Constitution than their vote.

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are dying to protect the very freedom of speech you want to deny.

When has this type of action ever happened before against a standing president?

You need to take down your craven idols of bush and cheney.

Freedom of Speech does not include ordering the police to arrest a sitting President, Vice President or any other member of the Government. It does NOT include ordering that such an arrest be accompanied with an attempt to deliver the illegally arrested elected officials to enemy States. Those are acts of Insurrection and Treason.

Freedom of Speech would be the town council announcing they think the people should be impeached and would NOT include a legal order to arrest people they have no authority to arrest. Again the passage of the arrest order is an act of Insurrection and the demand they be delivered to an enemy foreign power is an act of Treason.

 

[midcan5]

That you claim the President is a criminal is utterly moronic. You have no evidence and the people that are required to act IF he were guilty have said all along he has done NOTHING to warrant any action. And they are from the opposition party.

Did I say that. Read the link, or will the view burn your eyes.

From article.

"Bush and Cheney are guilty of numerous impeachable offenses," McGovern wrote in a recent op-ed in The Washington Post. "They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American public time after time. They conduct and barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of the people of the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard."

Wexler argues that the length of time left for the Bush administration in office should have no bearing on any decision to go through with impeachment hearings on Cheney.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did I say that. Read the link, or will the view burn your eyes.

From article.

"Bush and Cheney are guilty of numerous impeachable offenses," McGovern wrote in a recent op-ed in The Washington Post. "They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American public time after time. They conduct and barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of the people of the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard."

Wexler argues that the length of time left for the Bush administration in office should have no bearing on any decision to go through with impeachment hearings on Cheney.

And yet no one takes them seriously. I agree, go ahead and impeach, it will ensure no dem gets elected in November.

 

[maineman]

And yet no one takes them seriously. I agree, go ahead and impeach, it will ensure no dem gets elected in November.

and that has been the overriding reason I have never been a big fan of impeaching Bush... the republicans saw how the impeachment of Clinton soured the American people on partisan witch hunts.... democrats saw too... and it would be foolish to repeat that mistake at a point when we are poised to regain the white house AND solidify our majorities in both chambers.

tongue in cheek: Revenge is a dish best served cold, and winning is the ultimate payback.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and that has been the overriding reason I have never been a big fan of impeaching Bush... the republicans saw how the impeachment of Clinton soured the American people on partisan witch hunts.... democrats saw too... and it would be foolish to repeat that mistake at a point when we are poised to regain the white house AND solidify our majorities in both chambers.

tongue in cheek: Revenge is a dish best served cold, and winning is the ultimate payback.

Except Bush got elected after Clinton was RIGHTFULLY impeached for Lying to a Judge. The problem now is your side has no credible charge to make to impeach WITH. They know it and know that doing so will just let the undecideds see what assholes the far left really are.

 

[maineman]

Except Bush got elected after Clinton was RIGHTFULLY impeached for Lying to a Judge. The problem now is your side has no credible charge to make to impeach WITH. They know it and know that doing so will just let the undecideds see what assholes the far left really are.

I think lying to the american people and starting a war in Iraq when the guys who attacked us were nowhere near there is impeachable....but as I said... when you impeach Bush, the cure is worse than the disease, and it will only serve to piss America off AGAIN.... I say just sit back and hang Bush around McCain's neck... and win in november. that will be much better for america than punishing a moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think lying to the american people and starting a war in Iraq when the guys who attacked us were nowhere near there is impeachable....but as I said... when you impeach Bush, the cure is worse than the disease, and it will only serve to piss America off AGAIN.... I say just sit back and hang Bush around McCain's neck... and win in november. that will be much better for america than punishing a moron.

Except EVERY commission ever sponsored has declared Bush did not lie to anyone. Further what he said was accepted general knowledge by everyone BEFORE we invaded and found out different. INCLUDING the leaders of YOUR party.

And further Bush could not invade without the consent of Congress, the Senate controlled BY democrats agreed overwhelmingly to support war INCLUDING a MAJORITY of Democratic Senators. AN overwhelming majority of Representatives also voted FOR war.

And you have stated Bush did not lie to THEM, so why would they do that?

 

[DeadCanDance]

The only thing that was "widely accepted" (though, not universally) was that saddam probably had some bio-chem weapons. Although it wasn't certain how large or significant the stockpiles were.

It was absolutly disputed that he had a nuclear weapons program, and it was absolutly disputed that he had been cooperating at all with al qaeda. In fact, it was widely thought in the intelligence community that he was unlikely to ever give al qaeda WMD, unless we attacked him and his regime was on the verge of collapse.

So, there was no evidence of any kind of urgent threat to the united states.

 

[maineman]

Except EVERY commission ever sponsored has declared Bush did not lie to anyone. Further what he said was accepted general knowledge by everyone BEFORE we invaded and found out different. INCLUDING the leaders of YOUR party.

And further Bush could not invade without the consent of Congress, the Senate controlled BY democrats agreed overwhelmingly to support war INCLUDING a MAJORITY of Democratic Senators. AN overwhelming majority of Representatives also voted FOR war.

And you have stated Bush did not lie to THEM, so why would they do that?

a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war. republicans were nearly unanimous in their support thereof. that fact cost them their majorities in 2006. It will cost them the white house in 2008.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I would say this qualifies as Treason. The town officials should be arrested and tried for treason and Cheney should visit so that any police or citizens dumb enough to try and arrest him can also be arrested for Treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."



Since the only real "powers" that would try Bush and or Cheney are our enemies the bolded part applies.

Bush and Cheney are not "The United States", as much as your worshipping ass think they are.

They are public servants, in the employment of the people of the United States.

If a group of citizens think their actions have been criminal towards the interests of the nation, they have every right to pass a non-legal, non-binding resolution calling for impeachment.

What are you, a Nazi?

 

[Alucard]

Now you are into name calling but I still have nothing. The case for Cheney/Bush being impeached is pretty strong.

.

What a stupid dope!

Strong case..... What case?... Bush has done nothing but upheld the constitution ...

Another thing ass wipe... its Bologna ...not boloney ... A typo is one thing, but thats no accident you stupid dope...

Your a typical, stupid, Philadelphia dope....

Oh by the way... Did I foget to mention your a stupid dope?....

 

[Alucard]

I think lying to the american people and starting a war in Iraq when the guys who attacked us were nowhere near there is impeachable....but as I said... when you impeach Bush, the cure is worse than the disease, and it will only serve to piss America off AGAIN.... I say just sit back and hang Bush around McCain's neck... and win in november. that will be much better for america than punishing a moron.

You really dont think Osama-Obama, or Billary can win this thing do you?

You assholes blew it... This election should have been a cakewalk... but the democrat dopes blew it AGAIN... You brought two losers to the table... I live in middleclass blue collar democrat heaven... and all of them say the same thing.... "I'm not voting for a woman or a black"... Lifelong NJ democrats... They like McCain however...

Good luck !!!!