• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Senator Feingold to Seek Censure of Bush

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GrnMarvl14

Lying
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
13,846
Reaction score
4
Original Article. (Look...FoxNews).

WASHINGTON — A liberal Democratic senator who is considering a White House bid in 2008 said Sunday he is seeking to censure President Bush over his domestic eavesdropping program. The Senate majority leader called it "a crazy political move."

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history -- against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, a longtime critic of the Bush administration, said he hoped a censure would cause Bush to apologize for the warrantless surveillance that he put in place on his own after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"What the president did, by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and the laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping, has to be answered," Feingold said on ABC's "This Week."

"A crazy political move" that would weaken the U.S. during wartime was the immediate response from the Senate leader, Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who appeared on ABC right after Feingold.

"Russ is just wrong. He is flat wrong, he is dead wrong," Frist said. He did not respond directly when asked if he would allow the resolution to come up for a vote.

"The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer is wrong," Frist said.

The White House says Bush had the power to order the monitoring as commander in chief and under a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism.

The resolution Feingold planned to introduce on Monday would have the Senate condemn Bush's "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States" and "his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program."

"The idea that the president can just make up the law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered," Feingold said.

In the House, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing legislation that would call on the Republican-controlled Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment because of the eavesdropping.

The program granted intelligence officers the power to monitor -- without court approval -- the international calls and e-mails of U.S. residents, when those officers suspect terrorism may be involved.

Feingold was the first senator to urge a withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops in Iraq and was the only senator to vote in 2001 against the USA Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers. Feingold also voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq.

Jackson was censured by the Senate in 1834 after he removed the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig Party, which controlled the Senate. The resolution, which had no legal impact, was expunged from the Senate record in 1837 after Jackson's party, the Democrats, regained a majority in the Senate.

On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate failed to gain enough votes to bring a censure resolution of President Clinton. The Senate had just acquitted Clinton after the House impeached him in December 1998, accusing him of committing perjury and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Feingold, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992, voted in favor of taking up the censure resolution.

Impeachment is the only punishment outlined in the Constitution for a president. But the Constitution says the House and Senate can punish their own members through censure.
Click to expand...

Two questions here:

1. SHOULD Bush be censured or impeached? (If so, why?)

2. Does this stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding (as if the answer's not obvious)?

And it HAS to be noted that someone has ALREADY tried to get Bush impeached, but...well...need I say the results?

Case of Impeachment (Harper's Weekly Article). Read this article. Lists, WITH sources, the reasoning for why Bush should be impeached.

And I post this whole thing because the idea of Bush being censured or impeached is now a relative issue, and not just the hopes and dreams of liberal America.
 
I like how you get impeached for having an affair but not for violating the constitution and the very principles that America stands for. I also like how it never gets old for the republicans to imply that any questioning or critisism of authority is unpatriotic and weakens the country, yet again a direct opposition to the very principles America was founded on.
 
Bush should be impeached. Consider all the violations of the constitution, national, and international law. It's disgusting that Clinton got impeached for a blowjob (being impeched only means the Senate votes to throw you out of office or not) yet Bush has allowed thousands of Americans die for the profit of him and his buddies and he's allowed to do it.
 
Clinton got impeached for a bj? Link?
 
I think I just said that impeachment means the House had voted for the President to go before the Senate. So Clinton WAS impeached but was not removed from office. At least, I think that's how it goes.

Alright, he lied about getting a bj. However, the court had no right to ask him a personal and private question. Not mention no one was harmed by the fact Clinton did it and lied. Bush has lied and thousands of people have died.
 
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath ABOUT the blow job. They sought to CENSURE HIM because of the blow job.
 
I still find it amazing they could nearly throw a president out of office because of a bj and yet another president lies to get us into a war that has cost thousands of lives, blatently violates the constitution, and allows the most vile actions to be taken by our soldiers and we're lucky if he gets scolded. What a world we live in.

I still wonder what right they had to ask Clinton about his private affairs. He wasn't the first president to cheat on his wife and he certainly won't be the last.

Back on topic. Bush should actually censured several times over.
 
I still wonder what right they had to ask Clinton about his private affairs. He wasn't the first president to cheat on his wife and he certainly won't be the last.

-- It was in his office. The White House thingie.
 
Australiam said:
Clinton got impeached for a bj? Link?
Click to expand...

Come on, we all know that's what it was REALLY about. Had he lied about something else it would never have been a big deal. The reason they made it a big deal is because OMG blowjob adultery.

I'm not saying that adultery isn't bad, I mean it is bad, but lying about adultery is still a lot better than lying to get us into a war that kills tons of people and also violating the constitution by spying on people without warrants.

You know this is just a crazy religious right thing, this is how the religious right is, war is all awesome and good especially if it's against non-christians, but sex is EVIL. That's the reason it happened this way.

But I truly don't understand how anyone, even crazy religious people, can possibly think spying is alright. Does anyone honestly trust the government not to waste money on useless stuff, and if so what world have they been living in? There's a reason the police need to present evidence and obtain a warrant instead of being able to just search whoever they feel like, it's so that they don't just go after people unjustly based on flimsy evidence or a hunch. Also without having to answer to anyone, I don't see how anyone can think that it's not likely that the spying would be used for personal/political agendas that have nothing to do with terrorism.
 
Last edited:
The Big Al said:
I still find it amazing they could nearly throw a president out of office because of a bj and yet another president lies to get us into a war that has cost thousands of lives, blatently violates the constitution, and allows the most vile actions to be taken by our soldiers and we're lucky if he gets scolded. What a world we live in.
Click to expand...

Well...Clinton lied while under oath. Bush lied...like every other politician lies. If they threw him out of office, there would be a huge pile of Senators on the Capitol lawn.

ChaosRocket said:
I don't see how anyone can think that it's not likely that the spying would be used for personal/political agendas that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...

I don't think he would, and I've compared Bush to Hitler on numerous occasions (and will do so in the future).

Listen, I think Bush SHOULD be impeached. Why? For every reason listed in that Harper's Weekly article. And there's always guilt by association.
 
Any reason you think he wouldn't?

And do you think he's a better investigator than the police to the point that he'll be able to determine on his own if there's enough evidence to justify spying without having to present anything to a court for a warrant?
 
No, I don't think he would. That's why he has other people around him.

As to why he WOULDN'T: He's a lame duck president. All he has to do now is prevent a major war from breaking out. He doesn't give a shit what else happens. I think his policies show that.
 
It SHOULD pass 100-0. It won't, though. It won't pass. Frist is defending him and calling the censure everything he can (he's also said that it will give nations like Iran a bad impression of us), which means that MOST of the Republicans will back him (and Zell Miller).
 
So violating the constitution=OK as far as Mozz is concerned? I just don't see how you think it's alright for the president to pretty much be a dictator and do whatever he feels like even if it's against the constitution.

Under that logic, why do you care if the police have a warrant to search someone? If you believe they're not going to waste their limited resources searching people who don't deserve it, and apparently you think that people just know who needs to be searched/spied on well enough that they're always going to be right and don't need to present evidence. So why don't you support warrantless searches by the police?

It won't, but it should.
 
It should pass but it won't. The Republican law makers have to kiss the butts of the Bush supporters because they still make up the majority of the Republican party and are needed for the primaries. Just what until the full elections come though. In order to not get swept by the Democrats waiting to take their seats they'll be on Bush's case. You have to love politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom