Limits to Executive Power? Well, I suppose this is what happens when your Head of State, is also the Chief of Staff, also the President, and also has Veto power over the Legislature. Jee whiz. Figure that out. I like Kucinich.
It wasn't an impeachment hearing, which requires a full house vote as best I recall. Too bad that the American People didn't elect enough Dems for a conviction, or it woulda been done many months ago.
The Democratic House has taken the issue of impeachment off of the table... twice. Does that sound like a commitment to you?
I wonder where the two Senators running for president stand on limiting Executive Powers? I doubt any big changes are in the works.
What good is impeachment this late in the game? Unless the man is arrested as he leaves office, this is just going to be a pat on the rear end as he goes out the door. He'll still be a criminal the next day and continue his damage. x
Well, shouldn't we be obligated to do something about it then? and protect our Country, and its Constitution? Bush is in office until January 20, 2009. Thats plenty of time to do whatever he pleases. like... start a war with Iran...
Bush is a talking head and will do whatever he's told to do. That will not change after the election of a new president. New head on an old body. Same people in power. x
If Obama is elected, I think you'll see things change. The President can only be removed from office for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. President Clinton (the best president (IMHO) since FDR) was impeached because he lied under oath. In other words, he was screwing around on his wife and he didn't want her to know. Now, all we need to do is have bush write a bad check or get caught running a red light. We can't kick him out for lying, and as a result of those lies, indirectly killing and maming(sp) 1000s of men and women. Here's a good article on the Constitution and Impeachment: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html
It is with regret that I inform you that this goes much deeper than you know. The people who control Washington are, by and large, not elected officials. They act in the capacity of "advisors" to the elected. Most likely gleened from the various thinktanks from around Washington DC. Most, are zionists with an agenda to fulfill. They don't answer to you and I but to a cause. The world under a one world government. Theirs. These people don't care for the "law", but they will certainly use it against you if you decide to stand in their way. You should. While you still have the freedom to do so. x
But you don't know that. Bush has signed executive orders that could keep him in office in the event of a "national emergency." And Xenon is right. Presidents are merely figureheads. They decide nothing. Obama (or McCain) will be answering to the same establishment that Bush is if either one of them is selected. This is something people really need to understand. Bush does not run anything. A man that cannot speak a sentence of proper English is not running this country, OK?
Yes, and when you combine that with Patriot Act(s) 1 & 2, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, you see that the final jigsaw puzzle pieces are in place for a completely totalitarian infrastructure. It might not happen under Bush -- it could happen under McCain or Obama, but the pieces are in place nonetheless.
I saw a vid today in which some guy said that Bush could potentially become the U.S.' most influential president. I'll find the link http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=39336632 Its also a vid about veri-chips, the clip I'm talking about is at the very end.