Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Comments

Thankfully, when ones Muse takes it into her head to wander off on sabbatical we can mine the 'Comments' for writing material:

Jw said...
Hello Lawdog I am interested in knowing what part of the nation you are from and what area you currently reside?

New around here? The short answers are: "Which nation" and "Texas".

The long answer is: the Blog Archive over on the left is your friend.

Anonymous said...

Lawdog what do you know about the articles of impeachement that were read before the house last night?

Know? Probably as much as anyone else who takes the care to be informed on government matters. The better question to ask would be, "What do you think about ..."

Heh. I think that Dennis Kucinich is probably single-handedly responsible for the record-setting amounts of Maalox and Alka-Seltzer that flew off DeeCee area pharmacies just after his announcement.

You may, or may not, recall that Mr. Kucinich introduced a similar impeachment measure last year, only Vice-President Cheney was the target of the resolution. Republicans took a brief moment ("Oh, Lord, for the bounty Thou placest before us, let us be truly grateful. Amen.") then yelled, "Game on! Let's debate!"

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and Democrat -- ought to be in lockstep on that whole impeachment issue, you think?) passed the impeachment measure over to the House Judiciary Committee (22 Democrats, 16 Republicans) whereupon that (Democratic-majority) Committee promptly kicked the measure under the table and left it to die, alone and unloved.

Something similar is going to be the same fate of this one. Quiet, no-muss, no-fuss death in Committee.

It's all very well to go about accusing the President of this and that -- but proof and facts aren't required for bumper-stickers and 15-second sound-bites.

Should an impeachment measure come before the House entire, it will have to be debated. Those who favour impeachment -- in this case, much of the Democratic side of the House -- must prove the assertations.

The other side -- in this case, much of the Republican part of things -- not only has the ever-so-difficult task of saying, "Prove it"; and "That's not proof, here's why, try again." but -- and don't think a whole bunch of senior Democratic Party officials haven't spotted
this alligator in the swamp -- the Republicans are in the unique, enviable, and oh-so-enjoyable position of being able to say:

"Yes. President Bush is completely guilty of Articles 23, 24 and 25. Utterly and without defence.

However, since his violations of these Articles are due to his carrying out of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act -- a law written by the Congress of the United States, debated by the Congress of the United States, voted on by the Congress of the United States and approved to be sent to the President for ratification by the Congress of the United States -- well, under American law and under Common law, those folks who gave the President the power and the approval to violate Articles 23, 24 and 25 are just as guilty as the President -- if not more so -- and deserve at least the same punishment.

Here's a list of the names of the co-conspirators to those afore-mentioned violations of Article 23, 24 and 25 who are still currently serving in Congress.

Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander, and all that."

And this being an election year.

Yeah, unless the Republicans can pull a sneaky out of the hat, the Democratic leadership in Congress is going to make sure that this one quietly goes away.

Just like the last one.

LawDog

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just when I think it can't get any sadder.....

Thank you Dennis Kucinch (apologies for misspelling his name)

I think the aliens he saw at Shirley MacLaine's house are looking for their village idiot.

Amy in Texas

Mark said...

And so continues our slow, sad slide into having a King of America.

Rorschach said...

Lawdog, linkee no workee x2. but I got your drift none the less.

Anonymous said...

I fail to see the downside of impeaching a fair bit of Congress along with Bush. The President and Congress have all been worse than useless for the last seven years. Neither candidate for President is making me optimistic about the next four either.

Matt G said...

Sadly, Article XIX looks legit, too.

wolfwalker said...

One problem with your hypothetical, Lawdog. Well, two problems.

1) it requires Congressional Democrats to show some honesty and respect for the law. Ten years ago, those same Democrats ignored the evidence and voted "not guilty" in the Slug's impeachment trial -- and paid no political price for it. What makes you think they'll show any regard for the evidence now, or be penalized when they don't?

2) it requires Congressional Republicans to have spines, something that none of them have shown in years.

Anonymous said...

I'm feeling sadder and sadder. The MSM is all girly crushing over Obama, my gas and food bills get higher and higher and I know, I just know that if himself is elected president, I will have even less in my pocket.

I vaguely remember himself hinting that he might look into bringing charges against some of the members of the Bush administration when he becomes the anointed Emperor.

I am so depressed.

Ky Person

Miguel said...

We should be ready for the onslaught we may face coming January. There is a great chance that Obama will descend from the heavens into the White House via elections and coupled with a LibDem congress will ensure us a nasty couple of years at least. If anything, we must start working on the congressional elections for 2010 and purge both houses from so-called-Republicans and elect those who truly represent us.
It is my opinion that whomever gets elected, will be a one-term president but his legacy can destroy this country unless we move into action.

Tim Covington said...

I am seeing a troubling trend that started with Bill Clinton. It is becoming almost automatic for the opposition party to call for the impeachment of the setting President. I really worry about what is going to happen after Bush steps down. Will the Democrats try to put him on trial for his actions as President. If this happens (or he is impeached), what will future Presidents to do (or not do) to protect themselves.

wolfwalker said...

It didn't start with the Slug, Tim. It started with Reagan. Remember the Iran-contra scandal? The Boland Amendment? Democrats discovered during Watergate that impeachment could be an effective political weapon against a president they didn't like. Since they have no morals or respect for the law, they saw no reason to care about whether impeachment was legally justified, as it was against both Tricky Dick and the Slug. They've sunk to a point where they honestly believe that disagreements over policy can be legitimately used as grounds for criminal prosecutions.

Anonymous said...

Unless I am mistaken, there is a law in England which says the head of state cannot be brought to account (that is trial) for actions committed during his/her rule/reign. We should have something like that here, if we can't control our legislators. No one should be able to charge an ex-president for something done while in office. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would be hanging from the yardarm-that is, if we could get to him past the deification process.
The very idea that Obama might consider such an action against President Bush or anyone smacks of tyranny. It should go against the grain of every thinking American...dearie me, what did I say?
LawMom

TIM CARROLL said...

Better yet, if my district is really good in November we can just get rid of Kucinich for good!

Anonymous said...

To add what Wolfwalker 8:08am said, the Democrats have found that "proceedings" have been an effective tool against anyone they oppose. (I note, starting with Watergate) Gary Wright, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lodd, etc. have been removed via legal proceedings. On the other hand, the Left Side of the Aisle has ALWAYS found a way to excuse their followers from obeying the law, and forcing them into private life.

Dedicated_Dad said...

where's the list?

Tim Covington said...

Our constitution does have immunity for the President against anything but "high crimes and misdemeanors." The problem is what people consider "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Anonymous said...

tim-our constitution qualifies the immunity for the President; I believe that England doesn't, unless they've changed things a lot since I studied British history and civics. Lawyers can put a high crimes interpretation on anything-or misinterpret, or deny...One president, well-travelled, college graduate, man-of-the-world, claimed he didn't know that a blow job was sex-how Shirley Temple dimpled innocence is that?-and congress fell for it because they wanted to. Our Constitution is on very shaky ground in the hands of lawyers and politicians.
LawMom

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

"One president, well-travelled, college graduate, man-of-the-world, claimed he didn't know that a blow job was sex-how Shirley Temple dimpled innocence is that?-and congress fell for it because they wanted to."

So did the American Public. Denial plain and simple.

Does anyone really underdstand how demoralizing it is to have someone...like that...a commander in chief? And these two coming up next..oh good lord, just open the floodgates and just start learning muslim...or Chinese..or hell Spanish.

There are some days that I feel real fear for the state of our country.

Anonymous said...

The old saw "I love my country, but I fear my government" is fixing to come vividly true, I think. It's already here, just not as blatant as it's going to become. I don't like what I'm hearing from Obama-and I don't like that I'm hearing nothing from McCain. I don't want to ask where do we go from here; I'm afraid I know.
LawMom

HerrBGone said...

I suspect where we go from here involves an awfully big hand basket…

Anonymous said...

Well, kelly, it seems that Americans truly believe that man isn't naturally monogamous-and that he has a right not to be. And also that public figures have a right to do as they please in public. So far as I'm concerned, they give over that right in exchange for their ambition and position. As to the monogamy bit, why can't we demand that of the men when they demand it of us?
You can't tell me that Hilary didn't know of Bill's little games, although she played the wronged wife to the hilt for the American public-and then bought a house in New York, claimed it as her primary residence so she would be eligible to run as senator, even though it seems there is little evidence that she ever really lived there the required length of time. And we accepted it.
There's no relationship between the two? Of course there is: both things deal with dishonesty and lust-granted for different things, but lust all the same, and taking obscene advantage of the American public's sad mindset for compromise and not making waves.
Ronald Reagan (and I'm not a fan) respected the office of President so much that he always wore a coat and tie in the Oval Office. That, to a very minor extent, is the attitude which anyone in public office should adopt.
For private, personal rights, I'm a great advocate of that, as you can tell. BUT, there are lines between blatancy, stupidity, wilfulness, propriety, respect, and discretion. Old-fashioned as this may be, those lines shouldn't be crossed, certainly not by the President of the United States, and NOT IN MY HOUSE!
LawMom

Chris in SE TX said...

I'm afraid we are witnessing the downfall of the American Empire. To me, just the fact that so many Americans appear to be willing to vote for someone like Obama, a man who appears to not be proud to be an American, scares me.

How many years did it take for the Soviet Empire to crumble? Not that many. I believe Obama, using our superior technology, can destroy the U.S. as we know it, in less time.

Anonymous said...

Obama was born and raised Moslem. Despite his claims to a Christian religion now that it suits him, he's still Moslem; that never changes. Osama couldn't have planned it better-or maybe he did.

"gunner" said...

back during bubba's first campaign fot the presidency my boss at the time was a "clinton fan" even with all the stories coming out about his shenanigans, my comment to her was "if his wife cannot trust him in their marriage how can we trust him with our country?" we've long since seen the answer to that question, haven't we. "false in one false in all".
"gunner"

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

Lawmom..

I agree 100 percent. May I post this in my blog?

Anonymous said...

kelly-sure.
LawMom

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

Thanks! Thanks for the book recommendation, too!

Anonymous said...

Jesus H. Christ! Obama is not Muslim. Sure he claims christianity. If you want to make it in American politics, you have to. Seriously though, he's an atheist.

streetsweeper said...

"I'm afraid we are witnessing the downfall of the American Empire. To me, just the fact that so many Americans appear to be willing to vote for someone like Obama, a man who appears to not be proud to be an American, scares me."

Any of this will only happen if you & me allow it to happen. Any of you reading this that plan on taking a backseat to the election?

Get up off your tail.....

"gunner" said...

right in one streetsweeper, i don't entirely like mccain but i like obama less. i could care less about the colour of his hide, that's irrevevant. i'm much more concerned about whats in his mind and what he intends to do with my country. as above mccain is not my first choice but better him than obama, and not voting is not an option in my mind.
"gunner"
"gunner"

Anonymous said...

Since anonymous seems to have spent some years living among Moslems, I'm sure he's an authority on the subject. However, in my 30+ living among them in their own countries, I shall reiterate: in effect, once a Moslem, always a Moslem.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I have immense respect for Islam. Its believers' adherence to it is comparable only to that of the Jews who are devoted to their own religion. We could learn a lesson from people who make their religion an integral part of their daily lives.
I dislike intensely when religion is applied to politics, and when it is perverted to suit political goals and I have great fear of the application to misuse of Islam for destructive ends, which I think Obama will do.

Melissa said...

Kucinich and his wood nymph wife are "bats" of the first degree.
PLEASE let the aliens take him home!
As for Obama,

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021400.php
even his half brother considers him to have had a muslim background.
Melissa In Texas

Anonymous said...

Подскажите пожалуйста, искала средство от похудения и зашла на сайт [url=http://24ri.ru/]похудение[/url] а никакого средства там нет. Я может чего то не понимаю, но Подскажите пожалуйста что нить чтобы быстро сбросить 5 кг. Куапила новое платье но не влажу в него.Заранее огромное спасибо!