Every single representative and senator up for reelection (for years to come)will not be able to explain away their enabling of bush/cheney crimes. It couldn't be any clearer, they have put power, profits, and party before their country. They should all pay the price if they don't use their CONSTITUTIONAL POWER NOW to right this abomination of democracy! America is facing her darkest hour not from terrorist without, but from the muderous decay within. Just ask Abe, John, Bobby, Martin, Paul Wellstone, and now Pat Tillman.

Oh yeah, and don't forget Raymond Lemme!

They still have the republican dictatorship mentality and the behavior that exclaims Big Brother is a Republican.

They will filibuster anything that attempts to stop the crimes of Cheney and his lackey Bush. Thus we may be able to impeach Cheney but we can't convict him in the Senate. That is reality 101 until 2008.

The filibuster in the Senate is an indicator that a constitutional crisis in government is upon us.

Holt HR 811 has no hope of getting passed. It's mirror image in the Senate, S. 559, still has the original text that made the source code public. It will be filibustered or vetoed.

We are dead in the water until the '08 election when 21 republican senators are up for re-election, and all members of the House are up for re-election.

They still hope to deceive their constituents. I am doubtful that the gerrymandering corruption will save them any more than 10 seats.

Thus, after the '08 election we may very well have a Senate that is filibuster proof (60 dems and non-neoCon indies), and we may have a democratic president and vice president to replace the republican dictatorship we are now plagued with.

Representative Hinchey was wrong about one thing. His party does not have a one vote majority in the Senate.

And less when one considers that Senator Johnson is incapacitated and is not voting. He may recover and he may not.

So it is 48 dems v 49 republicans. There are 2 independents, totally 99 voting Senators.

Sanders the independent from Vermont generally votes with the dems, and on social issues so does the other independent Lieberman.

However, on war issues Lieberman votes with the republicans which gives them the initial one vote majority.

Lieberman caucused with the dems so he could get chair of a committee. That gave them caucus majority and the chairs of all committees and the majority votes on all committees.

The dems are, even if Johnson returns to voting, 11 votes short of filibuster control.

They are 18 votes short of veto override control.

Control and majority are divergent concepts in the Senate. The House is a different animal where majority vote is controlling. However, even that is subject to the Senate filibuster because our national congress is a bi-cameral body, meaning every bill that goes to the president must be passed by both the Senate and the House.

Yes, Dredd. Every bill, but not every resolution. As in an Impeachment Resolution. But, of course, you knew that. Just thought I'd clarify again for readers as needed.

.

The best way to ensure that the Senate doesn't have the votes to CONVICT is to NOT give them an Impeachment case to try.

Each time someone uses the argument concerning the Senate's lack of votes to CONVICT, they are essentially arguing for the Senate to NOT have a case to try.

The best way to NOT win a race is to NOT run it, NO?

The Senate HASN'T even voted on an Impeachment case to try before them, and yet we're being told that there AREN'T enough votes... (blinky-eyes)

There hasn't even been an Impeachment yet.

The first step to winning a race is showing up for it, NO?

I'm sick of hearing how it can't be won. Lets at least show up to this race, and then let's worry how it can be run...

.

Hey Dredd, did they have a majority before starting proceedings against Nixon, or did those votes come to the table DURING THE PROCEEDINGS when criminal activities were more thoroughly exposed? And yes, I know Nixon resigned before the full house even voted on impeachment, but the process itself ruined his support. That's a point to consider with these 100 year rule republicans! Subpoenas issued in impeachment proceedings can not be refused like the ones they are refusing now. How better to get to the truth than impeachment, and who is going to stand by exposed criminals to get reelected?

hmm compromised?

What does the old PFAW have to say about this I wonder?
It's Revolting to me

Brad #5

Good.

I offer this link to further clarify for us and for the readers:

While "bill" is used in common parlance to describe any legislative proposal, that is not procedurally correct. You are right that there are four types of legislative measures: bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. The key distinction among them is that two make law, and two don't.

Those that make law are bills and joint resolutions, while concurrent and simple resolutions do not. As law-making vehicles, bills and joint resolutions must go to the President for review. He may (1) sign them into law; (2) allow them to become law without his signature; (3) return them to Congress with a veto message, which gives Congress a chance to vote to override the veto; and finally, (4) pocket-veto them, which provides no opportunity for an override

(About Bills).

Ancient #7

Good question.

Nixon explained his reason for resigning:

Mr. Nixon said he decided he must resign when he concluded that he no longer had "a strong enough political base in the Congress" to make it possible for him to complete his term of office.

(Wash. Post, 1974, emphasis added). His own words show that congress is the key to presidential oversight.

Notice that he did not say he was resigning to do the right thing, he only admitted that he had lost power.

Power was his end-all and be-all. And so it is no surprise that Cheney / Bush are described as having "nixonian" behavioral patterns.

The House at that time was democratic majority. There were 21 democrats and 17 republicans on the Judiciary committee. Here is the way the charges were laid out:

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
...
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
...
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

(The History Place). There is no doubt in my mind that Cheney and Bush are both impeachable for the exact reasons Nixon was.

Nixon resigned because of the makeup of the Senate. He was informed that enough republicans would go along with the dems and he would be convicted.

The aftermath of Nixon's behavior resulted in:

The U.S. Senate election, 1974 was an election for the United States Senate held in the wake of the Watergate scandal, Richard M. Nixon's resignation from the presidency, and Gerald Ford's subsequent pardon of Nixon. These circumstances benefited the Democrats, and they made a net gain of three seats from the Republicans. This became four after the Senate voided the contested election in New Hampshire and Democrat John A. Durkin (D-NH) won a special election. After the special election, Democrats possessed 61 seats to 38 for the Republicans, with one Independent who caucused with the Democrats and one Conservative who caucused with the Republicans.

(Senate Election 1974). This shows how difficult it is to change the Senate.

Even after watergate and Nixon, they did get one more than a filibuster majority of 60 seats, ending up with 61. But they only gained a net of 3 seats.

So, yes, when Nixon resigned in the threat of impeachment, the Senate and the House had caucus majority in the House and in the Senate.

Afterward, however, they had filibuster stopping majority when the people spanked the republicans.

WHAT I WISH TO KNOW ARE THE FOLLOWING:

1. IS HE AN ADVOCATE OF HR 676-MEDICARE FOR ALL?
2. WHY DID HE VOTE TO FUND THE IRAQ WAR?
3. WHY DOESN'T HE 'DO' SOMETHING CONCRETE TO IMPEACH THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY?

There are many groups watching the above three issues closely. We are searching for candidates who will challenge ANY elected official who does not stand for these three issues. Currently, SEAN PENN IS CONSIDERING CHALLENGING 'DO NOTHING' MIKE THOMPSON IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (DISTRICT 01) FOR 2008.
WHILE WE'RE AT IT..before anyone say's good things about Obama....take a REAL LOOK AT HIS 'AFFORDABLE' HEALTH CARE PLAN!! IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OLD REPUBLICAN 'HEALTH CARTEL' CONVOLUTED DRIVEL WE NOW HAVE! THIS MAN IS A FAKE!

I am from Australia and am reasonably up to date with the goings on in US politics.
However, I would appreciate if anyone can enumerate the matters for which (apart from being conspicuosly injudicious and self-serving, and smug to boot) Bush and Cheney could be impeached (including primary details of proof).

The questions for Representatives like Maurice Hinchey would better be phrased like:

Do you not know that the Senate can't vote unless the House convicts first?

Do you not know that the hearings in the House Judiciary Committee would either develop a record so vivid that no Republican could be reelected if he voted against impeachment, or the impeachment process should be dismissed?

These fools need to quit playing stupid. This is about maipulating intelligence to get official clearance to commit mass murder and treason against American armed forces and our Treasury. This is not about making honest mistakes, it's about criminal acts.

sean again

Right off the top of my head, there's the Downing Street Memo as proof, for certain, and their own public admissions of other crimes. There is a great deal of work on the multifarious grounds for impeachment of both online. Google it.

IMPEACH THE ENTIRE CONGRESS/SENATE..except for the 5 elected officials who REFUSED TO VOTE FOR FUNDING on the 150 BILLION WAR debacle:
They are-Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, B. Obama, and Christopher Dodd!

ALL THE OTHERS ARE LYING - THEY ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE WAR-AND DO NOT WISH TO IMPEACH ANYONE! THIS INCLUDES CONYERS, Pelosi, Reid, ET AL. As long as they fund the war, they are supporting the Bush Crime Family!! Vietnam was ENDED by a refusal to fund it!