Any chance of Impeaching Bush?

Would you consider Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fox Judicial analyst an expert?

 

I agree my opinion has no weight with the Supreme Court.

Likewise, the Supreme Court's opinion of whether a certain act was constitutional or not is simply not relevant, nor is it binding, in an impeachment proceeding is it?

 

I consider his Honor an idiot.

(Don't ask me why, I haven't watched or listened to him in months, so I don't recall the particular issues. But of the many times I saw him I regularly found myself lacking respect for his legal opinions and thinking.)

 

There is no chance of impeaching Bush, strange and sad but true.

 

I can live with that. I consider some posters here idiots.

Don't ask me why, I don't remember the particular posts, but many times, I find myself lacking respect for the opinions posted here.

 

I hear ya on that one

Nothing but whine and complain about the country they are occupying, thread after thread after thread about how bad America sucks. Blame America first. Kind comments for terrorists and terrorist organizations, but never a kind word for the country they currently live in.

Can you believe those idiots?

 

If I am an occupier, does that make you an insurgent?

And your posts IEDs (Irresponsibly Erroneous Debate)?

 

I would imagine if the SC ruled something as being constitutional it would be deemed legal, which would negate the reason for an impeachment in the first place, would it not?

 

What Bush did with the warrantless wire taps was in the best interest of the American people. Historically, presidents have gone way beyond that in war time.

Their first duty is to protect the country. In World War II, when people had much more common sense than today, wire taps and surveillance were commonplace and never questioned.

You just cannot take away all the surveillance tools and then blame the intelligence community when they do not prevent an attack. There is not one iota of evidence that what Bush did was anything other than what he said it was, and it was in the best interest of the country. They were not listening in on the conversations of average Americans. They were listening to the bad guys.

 

So you don't think Bush was interested in finding out the time that you would meet your girlfriend or mother?

Lol at people who moan about privacy in terrorism cases

 

That doesn't make it legal. This is a land of laws, not men.

Incorrect. Their first duty is to the Constitution as it is for all of us who have taken the oath.

 

Some people are disappointed that terrorists don't have a fair shake at pulling off their missions.

They pretend it's America they care about, but truth be told, when reading who they support, give a pass to, always have a kind word for, it all becomes clear what the underlying motive is.

I'm surprised they don't believe others can see right through it.

 

Bush? No. Clinton, maybe.

They were also only listening in when one party was not protected by the constitution.

That was the whole issue: do both parties need to be protected to require a warrent or does only one party need to be protected?

The Supreme Court ruled that both parties must be protected. So, if you call up a foreigner, the government can record the call since the foreigner has no protection.

As such, unless your girlfriend or mother were not US citizens or you were not a US citizen, there was no chance of them taping your line without a warrent.

If both parties were citizens they needed a warrent. If one party was not a citizen they didn't need a warrent.

The liberals have yet to make an honest argument against it. They just want to pretend that the government was trying to tap anyone and everyone regardless of who was on the other line without a warrent.

 

I actually agree with this. However, it is a slippery slope as it could be abused and begin the chipping away of citizen privacy. I think a bipartisan/judicial committee to monitor the wiretaps and monitoring would be in order. More government? Yes, but do we just let it run wild?

 

The job of the federal government is to protect the best interests of the citizenry, not to negotiate compromises on give up this, for some more of that.

The reality is that self-written search warrants have been abused for domestic purposes, which is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, a section of the Bill of Rights that defends against such behavior which (iirc) Ben Franklin said was a big push to rebel against the British (Stamp Act).

I forget off the top of my head specifically which Bill it is, but the one that allows the sneak and peek searches, doesn't even allow you to challenge the government in court by using your own name. You have to file as John Doe or Jane Roe, because if you tell a judge that the government secretly investigated you, it's a federal crime.

What sort of logic is this? It's ludicrous. I can make everyone safe as well, by taking away all movement, all speech, all social gatherings, restricting the sales of all weapons, all chemicals, all raw materials, all drugs, controlling the freedom of the press, and shutting down the voting system so no one can elect someone who doesn't represent the government's positions.

And boy, oh boy, you'd be really safe in your 4' x 4' cell. No one could "get you".

 

Or they could chip all of us.

The very things we value; freedom of choice, speech, etc, could be our weakness, to be exploited by others. It's a tough thing to balance. I have Orwellian concerns about it myself.

I don't know what would be the best answer...

 

The incredible quantity and volume of evidence stonewalling from the Bush administration makes it impossible to pursure evidence of wrongdoing.

After this administration is out of office and if efforts are made and are successful in uncovering documents from the Bush administration there could be ramificiations.

But the documentation would have to be uncovered.

Its been a disservice to the American public.

 

Impeachment is not a bad word. I believe it occurs several times in the Constitution, as opposed to the word democracy which does not appear once.

Impeachment is not only based around the Presidency. It's the only option "we the people" have between electoral cycles to hold our public servants accountable.

 

I agree with you, but there isn't one shred of proof in this situation that Bush was doing anything other than what he said he was doing--and that was in the best interest of protecting Americans. I think they need to be able to do this given the nature of the threats. The problem is that in many situations there is a small window of opportunity and they don't have the time to get a warrant.

They can listen in on my phone calls all that they want. The only people that need to be concerned are those with something to hide.

Don't forget that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic.