Impeachment, yes or no

[b_dubb]

The Conservatives as a whole are better people than the Liberals.  We believe in what this country was founded on and they are just here for the handouts.  We are tolerant - regardless of what they claim, they are the intolerant.  Until this destructive America hater Obama and his toadies were placed in the White House, the Conservatives and Republicans for the most part did not respond to the lies, smears, and name calling in kind.  That was a mistake.  I personally think the Right should act the same way the Left has been acting all these years - and even more so - until they decide to call a truce and be civil.

Oh yeah .... you are sooooooooooo fucking tolerant.

[PB the Deplorable]

PB needs to lay off the KoolAid

... Reagan and Bushes 1 & 2 spent us into oblivion. Every Republican Admin has compounded the deficit.

The Democrats are slightly less shitty. Clinton left office with a surplus. Which Bush Jr promised to give away. And it's been downhill ever since.

From 1981 to 2001, I suggest you look to see which party held the Congress when those deficits were increasing, and which party held the Congress when that surplus was attained.

What the D's said when Reagan sent his annual budget proposals to them every year ('dead on arrival').  Since Reagan's budgets were dead on arrival, and the D's went on to spend much more than he proposed, it seems to me they are responsible for those deficits.

Same with the Gingrich surpluses.  Clinton wanted to spend much more, so why would anyone give him the credit for the lower spending (leading to the surplus) that was forced on him?


The Bush II years, yeah Bush acted like a Democrat - getting us into stupid wars and jacking up spending.  As I recall the D's went along with the wars and the spending to though. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh yeah .... you are sooooooooooo fucking tolerant.

Oh, I wasn't referring to myself.  With my front row seat here in San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley I ran out of tolerance for the Left wing jerk-offs long ago. 

[b_dubb]

Oh, I wasn't referring to myself.  With my front row seat here in San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley I ran out of tolerance for the Left wing jerk-offs long ago.

Shit dude. Now it totally makes sense. I couldn't handle that shit either.

I consider myself to be pretty moderate. I wouldn't fit in around there either.

[PB the Deplorable]

Shit dude. Now it totally makes sense. I couldn't handle that shit either.

I consider myself to be pretty moderate. I wouldn't fit in around there either.

Sometimes I forget the rest of the country isn't the way it is around here.

[NowhereInTime]

Sometimes I forget the rest of the country isn't the way it is around here.

I would love to live in the bay area. As much as I like Connecticut,  we don't have a city like San Francisco.  Sure, Boston has charm and New York has, well, everything, but San Francisco has an elegance like no other city in America.  Oakland reminds me a lot of Waterbury,  which is not a bad thing.
Why do you stay if it displeases you so?

[PB the Deplorable]

I would love to live in the bay area. As much as I like Connecticut,  we don't have a city like San Francisco.  Sure, Boston has charm and New York has, well, everything, but San Francisco has an elegance like no other city in America.  Oakland reminds me a lot of Waterbury,  which is not a bad thing.

Why do you stay if it displeases you so?

Taken as a whole, I doubt there is a place as nice as this, at least in the US.  Weather, an enormous amount of open space, people and food from everywhere,, fresh local organic produce, access to concerts, sporting events, museums, beautiful buildings, great views, interesting neighborhoods, places to visit, things to do..  I could hike, bike, or kayak just about every day of the year.  Did I mention the weather...

I'm not going to let a few shitheels spoil my day.  Let me just say a one party system is a very bad idea.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

By 'high crimes and misdemeanors' the founders meant the conduct of the President, and to a lesser extent - incompetence.  Impeachment (and the trial to convict in the Senate) is a political act.  It's a mistake to equate it to a regular criminal matter taken up by a court.

What in the fuck are you talking about?  Aren't you the one who claimed that the teabagpushers are the only ones following the principles this country was founded on, or some other similar horseshit statement?  You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret the Constitution in whatever way suits you, don't you?  Hello?

Holy mother of fuck.  incompetence is a criminal act.  You neocons are nuttier than squirrel turds, every fucking one of you.

[RealCool Daddio]

By 'high crimes and misdemeanors' the founders meant the conduct of the President, and to a lesser extent - incompetence.  Impeachment (and the trial to convict in the Senate) is a political act.  It's a mistake to equate it to a regular criminal matter taken up by a court.

This President has ignored court decisions, has taken action beyond his powers as President, ignores laws he has sworn to uphold, has illegally made unilateral changes to other laws.  He has used the IRS against his opponents, and has created a massive surveillance program to spy on US citizens that have neither committed any crime nor are suspected of doing so.  His EPA is out of control writing new regulations that are either not supported by any underlying law or are the opposite of the intent of existing law.  He has created senior policy making positions (the 'czars') and made appointments without Senate confirmation - which was illegal, as all senior policy makers are required to be confirmed.  He has undercut our allies and emboldened our enemies.  He is hollowing out our military to the point we are under WWI era strength as far as naval vessels, and 'shooters' in the army.   He issues Executive Orders in areas beyond his authority as President, and claims Executive Privilege, not to protect national security, but to cover up illegal activities in his administration.  Not only the IRS but the EPA have destroyed subpoenaed documents, and have sent employees to Congress to under oath.  Other Administration members subpoenaed by Congress have refused to testify.

Any single item above is an Impeachable act.  The volume taken as a whole is breathtaking.

Firstly, I think you should seek a patent on your combination time machine/mind reader - breathtaking technology that let's you travel to a bygone era and read the thoughts of intents of historical figures.  You'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams!

But, let's take your assertions as true, just for the sake of discussion.  Given these true assertions on your part, I have a simple question:

Should Reagan have been impeached for Iran Contra?

[PB the Deplorable]

What in the fuck are you talking about?  Aren't you the one who claimed that the teabagpushers are the only ones following the principles this country was founded on, or some other similar horseshit statement?  You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret the Constitution in whatever way suits you, don't you?  Hello?

Holy mother of fuck.  incompetence is a criminal act.  You neocons are nuttier than squirrel turds, every fucking one of you.

What in the fuck are you talking about?  I'd guess you are one of those who think when it says in the Preamble '... promote the general welfare...', and Section I Article 8 Clause 1 '... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...', that they are talking about welfare handouts.

Holy mother of fuck, have you ever read the Federalist Papers, or any other writings by the founders of the country - you know, the people who actually wrote the Constitution?  No, clearly you have not.  Having written the Constitution, they probably knew best what it was they meant when they used various words, phrases, and clauses.

I get that the language has changed over time and some of it can be difficult to read through with understanding, but if you aren't willing to do that you may want to think about not commenting on things you know so little about.


Here are a few early examples of commentary regarding High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."


Following is a short history of how the phrase 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' became part of the Constitution, and as the Framers understood it under existing English law:

To better understand the meaning of the phrase, it’s important to examine how the framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong. To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new government into three branchesâ€"the executive, legislative, and judicial. This is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances.

Impeachment of judges and executive officials by Congress was one of the checks proposed at the Constitutional Convention. The impeachment of judges drew widespread support, because federal judges would hold lifetime appointments and needed some check on their power. But some framers opposed impeachment of executive officials, arguing that the president’s power could be checked every four years by elections.

James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

[Foodlion]

impeach all of those twats we call politicians. Every one of them, from both friggin parties.

[albrecht]

Firstly,

Should Reagan have been impeached for Iran Contra?

Yes, at least hearings, trial or impeachment but more for BCCI and the Inslaw stuff. Dont care as much about killing some commies. Interestingly was the quick "stop" by top Democrat Inoyue (D-Hawaii) when Rex 84 got mentioned by fellow Democrat from Texas during the Iran-Contra hearings. But this In the past and regardless there is this odd theme of Obama adherents who think because others do bad, or even illegal, things means it is ok for Obama. What happened to "change?" It is as if they never learned the old maxim just because others do something doesn't mean you should. It is funny.... Now drone killing, domestic NSA spying, GITMO, funding radical Islamists, secret gun n arms deals, etc are "good" because Obama does them!

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

What in the fuck are you talking about?  I'd guess you are one of those who think when it says in the Preamble '... promote the general welfare...', and Section I Article 8 Clause 1 '... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...', that they are talking about welfare handouts.

Holy mother of fuck, have you ever read the Federalist Papers, or any other writings by the founders of the country - you know, the people who actually wrote the Constitution?  No, clearly you have not.  Having written the Constitution, they probably knew best what it was they meant when they used various words, phrases, and clauses.

I get that the language has changed over time and some of it can be difficult to read through with understanding, but if you aren't willing to do that you may want to think about not commenting on things you know so little about.


Here are a few early examples of commentary regarding High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."


Following is a short history of how the phrase 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' became part of the Constitution, and as the Framers understood it under existing English law:

To better understand the meaning of the phrase, it’s important to examine how the framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong. To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new government into three branchesâ€"the executive, legislative, and judicial. This is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances.

Impeachment of judges and executive officials by Congress was one of the checks proposed at the Constitutional Convention. The impeachment of judges drew widespread support, because federal judges would hold lifetime appointments and needed some check on their power. But some framers opposed impeachment of executive officials, arguing that the president’s power could be checked every four years by elections.

James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

You're wrong here, but just to make sure that you get the magnitude of the cornholing you deserve, I want to see some references for those quotes.  Since you are a teabagger, you're by nature a liar, and the chances are excellent that you've misrepresented the quotes.  So I want to read them in context.  Then I'll get busy with the rest of the lies, i.e. the ones that flow out of the text of the quotes as you've presented them.

[PB the Deplorable]

Firstly, I think you should seek a patent on your combination time machine/mind reader - breathtaking technology that let's you travel to a bygone era and read the thoughts of intents of historical figures.  You'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams!...

Well, oddly enough it turns out they wrote a lot of it down.  And it's available to be read and studied to this very day

... But, let's take your assertions as true, just for the sake of discussion.  Given these true assertions on your part, I have a simple question:

Should Reagan have been impeached for Iran Contra?

First off, recall Impeachment (and the subsequent trial in the Senate) is a political act.  It's not really about law and order, although it can be.  As such it's up to the Congress to decide.  They have a great deal of latitude and could probably find something serious and 'Impeachable' within any Administration.  But in the end any given Congress is only going to do what is politically in their best collective interest - meaning supported overwhelmingly by their supporters, if not the vast majority of the American people.

In Iran-Contra, didn't the Democrats test the waters by setting up House-Senate joint hearings to determine this very question?  I'm not sure they talked about Impeachment for public consumption, but that's where they hoped it would ultimately go.  As someone who watched most of it on TV, I have to say the Democrats were embarrassed in front of the country, thanks to the testimony of Oliver North.  The country heavily sided with North and with the Contras.  The D's couldn't shut down those hearing fast enough. 

Obviously they lost any appetite they had for Impeachment.


Iran-Contra was about rescuing 7 hostages in Lebanon held by a group friendly to Iran, and funding our friends fighting the Cuban and Soviet proxies that had seized Nicaragua.  To me those goals significantly outweighed sending some weapons to Iran, although I didn't like the idea of sending them those weapons either - I don't think anyone did. 

I'd rather trade weapons for 7 good Americans plus cash for the Contras, than trade 3 high ranking Taliban terrorists for a deserter, that's for sure.  I think the President has leeway in this area and I wouldn't Impeach Reagan or Obama in either circumstance.

[b_dubb]

Unless those Americans are Arabic speaking Muslims

[PB the Deplorable]

You're wrong here, but just to make sure that you get the magnitude of the cornholing you deserve, I want to see some references for those quotes.  Since you are a teabagger, you're by nature a liar, and the chances are excellent that you've misrepresented the quotes.  So I want to read them in context.  Then I'll get busy with the rest of the lies, i.e. the ones that flow out of the text of the quotes as you've presented them.

Since you are just going to come up with more insults and horseshit no matter what I provide, how about you do your own research.  I gave you quotes and references, it isn't that hard for you to go the rest of the way.

[PB the Deplorable]

You're wrong here, but just to make sure that you get the magnitude of the cornholing you deserve, I want to see some references for those quotes.  Since you are a teabagger, you're by nature a liar, and the chances are excellent that you've misrepresented the quotes.  So I want to read them in context.  Then I'll get busy with the rest of the lies, i.e. the ones that flow out of the text of the quotes as you've presented them.

By the way, it occurs to me that if you're against lies and liars, you must really hate Obama. 

[albrecht]

Well, oddly enough it turns out they wrote a lot of it down.  And it's available to be read and studied to this very day



First off, recall Impeachment (and the subsequent trial in the Senate) is a political act.  It's not really about law and order, although it can be.  As such it's up to the Congress to decide.  They have a great deal of latitude and could probably find something serious and 'Impeachable' within any Admin
istration.  But in the end any given Congress is only going to do what is politically in their best collective interest - meaning supported overwhelmingly by their supporters, if not the vast majority of the American people.

In Iran-Contra, didn't the Democrats test the waters by setting up House-Senate joint hearings to determine this very question?  I'm not sure they talked about Impeachment for public consumption, but that's where they hoped to go.  As someone who watched most of it on TV, I have to say the Democrats were embarrassed in front of the country thanks to the testimony of Oliver North.  The country heavily sided with North.  The D's couldn't shut down those hearing fast enough. 

Obviously they lost their appetite for Impeachment.


Iran-Contra was about rescuing 7 hostages in Lebanon held by a group friendly to Iran, and funding our friends fighting the Cuban and Soviet proxies that had seized Nicaragua.  To me those goals outweighed sending some weapons to Iran, although I didn't like the idea of sending them those weapons - I don't think anyone did. 

I'd rather trade weapons for 7 good Americans plus cash for the Contras, than trade 3 high ranking Taliban terrorists for a deserter, that's for sure.  I think the President has leeway in this area and I wouldn't Impeach Reagan or Obama in either circumstance.

Funny how the gun running (and much worse) to Mexican drug cartels and Islamist radicals in the Benghazi debacle is ignored

[PB the Deplorable]

Funny how the gun running (and much worse) to Mexican drug cartels and Islamist radicals in the Benghazi debacle is ignored

And note Reagan didn't hide behind Executive Privilege.  Nor did he have Big Media covering for him.  Nor did he have documents destroyed.  Nor did he prevent his staff from testifying. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Since you are just going to come up with more insults and horseshit no matter what I provide, how about you do your own research.  I gave you quotes and references, it isn't that hard for you to go the rest of the way.

I figured you would puss out the minute your quotes came under scrutiny.  And you didn't provide any references, dickhead.   You don't know what a reference is, do you?  Just one of a great many things you know nothing about.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

By the way, it occurs to me that if you're against lies and liars, you must really hate Obama.

Jesus Christ what a fucking pussy you are.  The minute your horseshit is challenged, you start screeching about Obama.  Just another teabagger who does nothing but lie, lie, lie.

[b_dubb]

And note Reagan didn't hide behind Executive Privilege.  Nor did he have Big Media covering for him.  Nor did he have documents destroyed.  Nor did he prevent his staff from testifying.

Oliver North really did have amnesia then?

[yumyumtree]

This thread seems to have struck a nerve with people, which is good.
I've skimmed the replies and will try to read them thoroughly in the next day or so.

I knew that people would laugh when I said that I admire Sarah Palin's intellect, but I stand by it. I think she's smarter than people give her credit for being. Today she called the Michael Medved show on a regular caller line. It made my day. Earlier in the hour Medved had impugned her motives for coming out in favor of impeachment, saying it was to get publicity for her new TV venture. She politely and respectfully challenged him. Medved has been abusing people from the conservative wing of the party for years. During the shameful episode in Mississippi, he actually defended what the Cochran campaign did, calling it "outreach". I was floored. Finally somebody takes him on directly. And it's a woman.

[yumyumtree]

"Teabagger" is an insulting term with sexual connotations.

[b_dubb]

"Teabagger" is an insulting term with sexual connotations.

[PB the Deplorable]

I figured you would puss out the minute your quotes came under scrutiny.  And you didn't provide any references, dickhead.   You don't know what a reference is, do you?  Just one of a great many things you know nothing about.

I gave you a long detailed post, and it wasn't good enough.  Too bad.

I provided you with references:  "Commentaries on the Constitution" by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, James Madison during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers (No. 65), English law.

What I didn't provide were any links.  Do you know the difference between references and links?  There is an enormous amount of information regarding the Constitution and the Founding of the Republic on-line.  A curious, intelligent person such as yourself should have no problem finding these or similar comments - maybe just plug them into Google.


Holy shit, is it really that hard to understand the Framers wanted a way for a President to be removed for conduct?  These are the people who were extremely concerned about creating this office and vesting so much power in one person.  They spent a considerable amount of time debating the office, what powers the President would have, checks and balances, removal.   

[FightTheFuture]

I would absolutely be tickled pink to see the president impeached and removed from office. Only because he deserves it. If Richard M Nixon deserved it, then Barry H. Obama most assuredly deserves it.

However, the problem lies in being able to convince congressional Democrats to be honest and objective. That's simply never going to happen. The mere mention of impeachment proceedings sends Nancy Pelosi into unprecedented, eye-bulging spasms of orgasmic pleasure as her brainwashed staff begins cranking out forest-emptying volumes of fund raising letters and brochures proclaiming the demonic nature of Republicans.

In other words; it's not worth the trouble. The GOP will have control of the House and the Senate after November anyway.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I provided you with references:  "Commentaries on the Constitution" by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, James Madison during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers (No. 65), English law.

No, shit for brains, what you did was quote an editorial -- not a scholarly article, which must be factually accurate, but an opinion piece (remember this!) --  by Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD, entitled "The Founding Fathers, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Impeachment."  That is your primary source, and YOUR reference should have been to that article. 

So let's take a look at it, shall we?

First, about Faria.  He's a neocon who is violently opposed to public health policy, and an outspoken defender of the neocon interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  He wrote the above editorial in 1998 to make a case that Bill Clinton should be impeached over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Since that time, the section of his editorial you have quoted has been widely reprinted by various neocon idiots supporting the idea that (a) Clinton should be impeached; (b) Bush II should NOT be impeached; and (c) Obama should be impeached.  In other words, neocon retards who need talking points in order to think have been parroting this text for years.  Just like you, they swallow it whole without fact checking it.

I am only going to bother with the first quote from the editorial, because as expected, it shows how shamelessly neocons lie and misrepresent when it suits their purposes.  Here, again, is what Faria wrote in his editorial:

Indeed, in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: "The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature...[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests."

Wanna know why I bolded those words in the above quote?  Because Faria lied about the quote.  What Story actually wrote was different, most significantly in never fucking using the words "political nature."  He wrote "political character, a subtle difference, but one that has an entirely different meaning in context.  And what was Story writing about?  Certainly not about what Faria lies about, which is that impeachment was intended by the Framers to cover acts that would considered outside of the criminal sphere.  Story was making the case that the Supreme Court was not the most appropriate body to sit in judgment of the impeached defendant.  Here is the actual quote, in its entirety, and in context:

§ 761. There are, however, reasons of great weight, besides those, which have been already alluded to, which fully justify the conclusion, that the Supreme Court is not the most appropriate tribunal to be invested with authority to try impeachments.

§ 762. In the first place, the nature of the functions to be performed. The offences, to which the power of impeachment has been, and is ordinarily applied, as a remedy, are of a political character.  Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power, (for, as we shall presently see, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours are expressly within it;) but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed, political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office. These are so various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law.

Source:  Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Volume II, Chapter X, Sections 761-762. (Yes, that is the correct title, Faria didn't get that right, either)

Story was NOT saying that the Constitution intended non-criminal acts, like getting an extramarital blowjob or incompetence, to be impeachable acts that would justify removal from office, as you and your fellow meatheads would like to believe. 

It's supremely ironic that you would criticize ME for not doing any research, when your own fuckin link is so corroded that you clearly didn't research it properly yourself, and just parroted a neocon talking point.

I'm not going to bother going through the rest of the quotes you posted.  I expected this result from a teabagger, and when the very first point is found to be a lie, there's no point in wasting my time with the rest of it.

You're just a mindless neocon drone PB.  If you're going to live it, stop being a pussy and own it.

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't even know who this Miguel A Faria person is.  Maybe my source referenced him, maybe it was the other way around.  The quote from Justice Story was the least relevant in my post and I considered omitting it.  Guess I should have

Interesting you chose that quote though, being the least on point, and skipped the rest.  I dunno, I thought Madison and Monroe were better witnesses as to what went on than Justice Story, although Story's comments certainly don't conflict with those of Madison and Monroe.

Believe what you want though.  Impeachment is reserved for shoplifting and burglary, fine with me.



By the way, you keep accusing the Tea Party types of 'lies' (yet were laughably ruffled when it was pointed out what a liar this Obama puke is).

The Conservative have no reason to lie.  We believe in small government, low taxes, the right to the fruit of our labor, free exchange, property rights, the rule of law.  What's to lie about? 

We don't spring things like ObamaCare and so-called 'gay marriage' on the electorate after we're safely in office.  Even in San Francisco that mayor Gavin Newsom didn't run on 'gay marriage' before enacting it.  For the most part it's the D's who are dishonest

On the other hand, all the non-Conservative Republicans claim to be Conservatives, and even plenty of Democrats do - or at least in part, during their election campaigns.  Surely you've heard them claim to be 'fiscal' conservatives, or some such.  If the Conservatives are the liars and so out of touch, why is everyone else lying and claiming to be one when they want to get elected?

[NowhereInTime]

On the other hand, all the non-Conservative Republicans claim to be Conservatives, and even plenty of Democrats do - or at least in part, during their election campaigns.  Surely you've heard them claim to be 'fiscal' conservatives, or some such.  If the Conservatives are the liars and so out of touch, why is everyone else lying and claiming to be one when they want to get elected?

You know exactly why.  Every person who doesn't obsess politics (most people) like we do here confuse "conservative" with "conservation".  People think a "fiscal conservative" is one who scrutinizes expenditure before undertaking such and/or maximizes cost savings.  In truth, few such people exist in the political realm; they are mostly the administrative types who have to make budget.
Ironic, too, because conservatives oppose conservation measures at every turn.