Tags for This Article:

Bush Reasons To Dump Impeach (1871)  Obama-Barack (1750)  Bush Crimes (1343)  Crime (850) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ;
Add to My Group
June 16, 2008 at 08:20:28

Will President Obama be impeachable for allowing Bush's impeachable high crimes to continue past January 20?

by Ed Martin     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

George Bush is impeachable under articles six and seven of Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment.  These are not charges, which are subject to being determined as fact, they are articles that the evidence in existence proves are facts.  Those articles are:

Six:  The President has exceeded his Constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq without meeting the requirement of Congress's Authorization to Use Military Force.

Seven:  The President invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

Bush is impeachable under article six because the Authorization to Use Military Force clearly states that that force is to be used to "defend the United States."  Iraq did not attack the US, therefore no military defense was necessary and an attack on Iraq was not authorized.

Bush is impeachable under article seven because he did in fact invade Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

We hear talk of President Obama inheriting Bush's wars and what he's going to do about it.  That's begging the question in the extreme.  Obama can't inherit a war that he didn't start.  What he will inherit is the corruption that Bush left behind by the high crimes that Bush used in corrupting the Constitution, the corrupting of the US military, the corrupting of the office of Vice President with Dick Cheney, the corrupting of the State Department, the corrupting of the Pentagon, the corrupting of the CIA, and the corrupting of the entire executive branch.  President Obama will inherit corruption, not wars.

President Obama will be responsible for bringing the executive branch back under the Constitutional rule of law.  That, in itself, will automatically put an end to Bush's ongoing high crimes of starting and continuing his illegal wars.  All that President Obama has to do and must do is to enforce on the entire executive branch, which includes the Pentagon, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: Congress shall have power...to declare war, which hasn't happened.  That's all.  It will be his job to do that, as required by the oath he takes to protect and defend the Constitution.

Let's be clear on this.  Bush's wars are not Obama's wars.  Bush will always be responsible for them.  President Obama will never be responsible for them.  He's only responsible for eliminating the corruption that brought them about, and should he be so unwise as to allow that corruption to continue, only then will he inherit Bush's wars.

If President Obama doesn't immediately set about eliminating that corruption by bringing the executive branch back under the rule of law on January 20, he will be subject to articles six and seven of Kucinich's articles of impeachment by re-phrasing them to read:

Six:  The President(Obama) has allowed to continue the fact that the President (Bush) has exceeded his Constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq without meeting the requirements of Congress's Authorization to Use Military Force.

Seven:  The President (Obama) has allowed to continue the fact that the President (Bush) invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

It's one thing to be responsible for doing it, quite another thing to be responsible for allowing it to continue.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Bush is impeachable for doing it.  Obama will be just as impeachable for allowing it to continue.

President Obama will have no choice if he is to remain a legitimate, constitutional president.  He must reverse, put an end to and stop everything that George Bush started with his ongoing criminal enterprise.  Not to do so is an impeachable offense.

 

Ed Martin is an unindicted curmudgeon. He is not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, deist, atheist, or a member of any -ism.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments

Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
John Sanchez Jr.Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."

It is not up to the Senate, and certainly...

not up to the Executive branch to decide to bring impeachment proceedings. It is reserved to the House of Representatives per Article I, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Your ire should be directed at Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who are the primary roadblocks clogging the path to justice.

by John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1059 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 8:48:51 AM
 


Bio moved to 'contact info.'
Levin SheridanBio moved to 'contact info.'

An Awesome Point!

 

But is it legal? Can this be for real?

You have brought up an excellent point!

Can the next President, if he was helping GWB commit crimes during this Presidency, can he be held accountable as an accomplice? Or will the office of president shield him from such prosecution?

An interesting point!

It seems to me the office of president puts the man above the law and they don't seem to be touchable. Can we change this? I hope we can!

KG

by Levin Sheridan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 174 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 9:05:34 AM
 


Ed Martin is an unindicted curmudgeon. He is not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, deist, atheist, or a member of any -ism.
Ed MartinEd Martin is an unindicted curmudgeon. He is not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, deist, atheist, or a member of any -ism.

Missed the point

The point clearly made in the article is not that a future president can be impeached for helping Bush with his crimes during Bush's term.  That point was made clear by referring to Obama, who actually expressed his opposition to Bush's crimes at the time Bush committed them. 

The point made is that a future president who had nothing to do with Bush's crimes can become impeachable for allowing them to continue.

by Ed Martin (116 articles, 0 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 133 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM
 


Ed Martin is an unindicted curmudgeon. He is not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, deist, atheist, or a member of any -ism.
Ed MartinEd Martin is an unindicted curmudgeon. He is not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, deist, atheist, or a member of any -ism.

Didn't say that

There's no reference in the article to the Senate or the executive branch bringing impeachment.  The article doesn't say that.  There's no mention of that anywhere in the article.  It says that a president, any president, becomes impeachable under articles of impeachment as brought by Dennis Kucinich for high crimes in violation of the constitution.

The article is about how a president can make himself impeachable and the entirely separate process of how a member of the House can then bring impeachment.

Becoming impeachable and impeaching are different things.

by Ed Martin (116 articles, 0 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 133 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 9:21:21 AM
 

 

5 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Anne Kilkenny Full Email on Sarah Palin by Rady Ananda

John McCain: Morally, Mentally, and Emotionally Unfit by Jim Fetzer

Iran War ~ How It Will Unfold by Lord Stirling

High Treason: 'Pentagon Lied to the 911 Commission' ; Bush's Theory Falls Apart by Len Hart

Librarians Against Palin Founder a Mystery by Judy Swindler

What Sarah Palin Didn't Tell Us by Mary Shaw

Did Sarah Palin REALLY call Barack Obama "Sambo"? by syQodem

Is McCain Campaign Interfering In Alaska Troopergate Investigation of Palin? by Rob Kall

Sarah Palin, A Wolf in Moose Clothing by Anthony Wade

Protester who interrupted McCain's speech is an Iraq War Veteran by Mary MacElveen

Popularity Navigation
Control Panel:

Select Time
6 hrs 12 hrs
1 Day 2 Days
3 Days 1 Week
2 Weeks 1 Month
2 Months 3 Months
6 Months Last Year
Select Content
Articles Diaries
Polls Events
All Op-Eds
News Life/Arts/Science
Select Popularity
Page Views
# of Comments
Recommend Emails
  

Go To Top 50 Most Popular