THIS is what an impeachable offense actually looks like. Think about this for a couple of minutes when you consider the same people sitting in congress right now wanted to impeach a president for lying about getting a blowjob.
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
"In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress."
"The AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine."
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/1 ... awsuit.pdf
Correct me if I'm wrong--but isn't a lawyer obligated by his oath to pursue legal violations? There's ALOT of lawyers in congress--somebody should start a disbarring campaign.
What an impeachable offense looks like
Moderator: ericjon262
What an impeachable offense looks like
Last edited by MNFatz on Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
slow'n'steady
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:38 am
- Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
I'll update my original post. Thanks for the correction.rube wrote:No, they wanted to impeach for LYING about getting a blow job. Politicians hate liars.people sitting in congress right now wanted to impeach a president for getting a blowjob.
You know this is going to the Supreme Court. I think they'll overturn.
I've been trying to figure out how they'll overturn, but we're not talking about a res judicata hearing--the supreme court rules on the judgement contained in the .pdf above. I don't see how they can get out from under the FISA argument; the AUMF order, even IF it supercedes (which the court ruled it doesn't) doesn't get address the 1st/4th amendment violations.
That's the strongest worded judgement I've ever read. Generally the 'strength' of the wording indicates how lopsided or unlitigatible a dispute is. The last time I saw something this bad it was Nixon hiding behind national security to try and cover watergate.
I really don't think it'll be overturned. I'll bet Scalia and Thomas even come out against it--if the court agrees to hear it.
That was my goal...oxymoron of the week goes to....rube wrote:
Politicians hate liars.
The Supreme Court has some wiggle room. Samuel Alito likes this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_theory
Re: What an impeachable offense looks like
MNFatz wrote:THIS is what an impeachable offense actually looks like. Think about this for a couple of minutes when you consider the same people sitting in congress right now wanted to impeach a president for lying about getting a blowjob.
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
"In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress."
"The AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine."
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/1 ... awsuit.pdf
Correct me if I'm wrong--but isn't a lawyer obligated by his oath to pursue legal violations? There's ALOT of lawyers in congress--somebody should start a disbarring campaign.
I'm not correcting you, but I don't think a duty exists for an attny to pursue any wrong, tort, violation, etc. In fact, even prosecutors have discretion so they can turn the other cheek in that it isn't worth prosecuting or there isn't enough evidence. I know of no hypocratic oath for lawyers, which is why they are scum.Correct me if I'm wrong--but isn't a lawyer obligated by his oath to pursue legal violations? There's ALOT of lawyers in congress--somebody should start a disbarring campaign.
MNFatz wrote:I'll update my original post. Thanks for the correction.rube wrote:No, they wanted to impeach for LYING about getting a blow job. Politicians hate liars.people sitting in congress right now wanted to impeach a president for getting a blowjob.
You know this is going to the Supreme Court. I think they'll overturn.
I've been trying to figure out how they'll overturn, but we're not talking about a res judicata hearing--the supreme court rules on the judgement contained in the .pdf above. I don't see how they can get out from under the FISA argument; the AUMF order, even IF it supercedes (which the court ruled it doesn't) doesn't get address the 1st/4th amendment violations.
That's the strongest worded judgement I've ever read. Generally the 'strength' of the wording indicates how lopsided or unlitigatible a dispute is. The last time I saw something this bad it was Nixon hiding behind national security to try and cover watergate.
I really don't think it'll be overturned. I'll bet Scalia and Thomas even come out against it--if the court agrees to hear it.
Yep, and they'll just tell Bush to be more discrete. Nothing will change. There is selectivity in the law as to whom gets charged and tried.I really don't think it'll be overturned. I'll bet Scalia and Thomas even come out against it--if the court agrees to hear it
Irony is that the same case law is sometimes used to find an opposite decision in like matters and unlike matters. After a while you realize it's a joke.
I totally agree, and there is a lot wrong with thsi country. After I got an edumacation I learned this very well. Selective prosecution, overzealous prosecution and ignorant asswipe jurros who feel good when they put someone away. Ray Crone had 2 trials / 2 convictions, then the family spent 300k to simply get the DNA read, which pointed to another guy in custody for a like crime. Millions in payouts and the state legislature stood in line to apologize one at a time...... system is still a joke.Kohburn wrote:out of all the things wrong with this country - the judicial system scares me the most - with such subjective law they can do almost anything to you that they want.