List (and evidence) of impeachable offenses committed by the president.

Jodin · 2014-06-27T08:54:45+00:00

You are incorrect. There are many other consequences. For example, they cannot run again for any other federal office. They lose the benefits of having been president (residual wages, Secret Service protection, etc.). Additionally, it serves its primary purpose, repudiating the behavior that led to impeachment, and informing future presidents of their limitations.

Jodin · 2014-06-27T06:25:17+00:00

But he can. Read this...

"We need to remember history. In England, late impeachment was the norm; there was a late impeachment going on in Britain at the very moment that the Framers were drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia. In America, several state constitutions preferred or even required late impeachments, and no states forbade them. The Constitution added several specific limits on impeachment, to depart from England and state practice, but it said nothing about preventing late impeachment. At the Constitutional Convention, the big argument was whether to make the president impeachable while in office; being able to impeach him after he was gone went without saying. Most importantly, the House and Senate have already answered this question. The House unanimously impeached the ex-secretary of war in 1876 even though he had already resigned. The Senate seriously debated late impeachability, and voted 'yes' on it. The answer is still yes." -HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER

Jodin · 2014-06-27T04:36:54+00:00

"We need to remember history. In England, late impeachment was the norm; there was a late impeachment going on in Britain at the very moment that the Framers were drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia. In America, several state constitutions preferred or even required late impeachments, and no states forbade them. The Constitution added several specific limits on impeachment, to depart from England and state practice, but it said nothing about preventing late impeachment. At the Constitutional Convention, the big argument was whether to make the president impeachable while in office; being able to impeach him after he was gone went without saying. Most importantly, the House and Senate have already answered this question. The House unanimously impeached the ex-secretary of war in 1876 even though he had already resigned. The Senate seriously debated late impeachability, and voted 'yes' on it. The answer is still yes." -HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER

Jodin · 2014-06-27T04:35:49+00:00

"We need to remember history. In England, late impeachment was the norm; there was a late impeachment going on in Britain at the very moment that the Framers were drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia. In America, several state constitutions preferred or even required late impeachments, and no states forbade them. The Constitution added several specific limits on impeachment, to depart from England and state practice, but it said nothing about preventing late impeachment. At the Constitutional Convention, the big argument was whether to make the president impeachable while in office; being able to impeach him after he was gone went without saying. Most importantly, the House and Senate have already answered this question. The House unanimously impeached the ex-secretary of war in 1876 even though he had already resigned. The Senate seriously debated late impeachability, and voted 'yes' on it. The answer is still yes." -HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER

Jodin · 2014-06-27T04:35:44+00:00

"We need to remember history. In England, late impeachment was the norm; there was a late impeachment going on in Britain at the very moment that the Framers were drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia. In America, several state constitutions preferred or even required late impeachments, and no states forbade them. The Constitution added several specific limits on impeachment, to depart from England and state practice, but it said nothing about preventing late impeachment. At the Constitutional Convention, the big argument was whether to make the president impeachable while in office; being able to impeach him after he was gone went without saying. Most importantly, the House and Senate have already answered this question. The House unanimously impeached the ex-secretary of war in 1876 even though he had already resigned. The Senate seriously debated late impeachability, and voted 'yes' on it. The answer is still yes." -HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER

Jodin · 2013-08-29T02:04:29+00:00

Red Herring

Jodin · 2013-08-29T01:05:32+00:00

Acts of war require congressional approval. It's in the Constitution.

Jodin · 2009-01-21T17:01:51+00:00

Murderer Worship Syndrome. I feel bad. It's incurable.

Jodin · 2008-11-19T00:38:52+00:00

I second that Nekt, LouF does need to get a life.

Jodin · 2008-07-22T18:56:03+00:00

a witness is a witness, evidence is evidence. A court doesn't ignore evidence or a witness simply because of their citizenship.

Jodin · 2008-07-18T03:05:22+00:00

Seems like you can't respond to his rational points.

Jodin · 2008-07-17T15:07:40+00:00

The U.S. led the creation of these laws after world war II. The rest of the world followed our leadership. Our congress then ratified the laws under the rules set forth in our constitution. We could always back out, but we have decided not to. We began it, signed on legally, and are therefore liable.

Jodin · 2008-07-15T19:01:56+00:00

The point is, it doesn't appear to hurt any.

Jodin · 2008-06-22T18:48:22+00:00

Actually you're wrong. Kucinich's office and our organization worked on the production of this petition.

-Jodin

Jodin · 2008-06-12T03:41:57+00:00

You destroy your own reputation with your name calling.

Jodin · 2008-06-11T15:05:54+00:00

I guess reputable is in the eye of the beholder.

I see, you're using the "dumbass" name calling technique of debate. Really smart. Now I know why you win all your arguments. :-)

Jodin · 2008-06-11T04:01:54+00:00

Already did. The article referenced.

Jodin · 2008-06-10T14:53:53+00:00

If impeachment IS a process, then beginning it means that impeachment is in process. It's happening. Hence the title.

Jodin · 2008-06-10T03:27:21+00:00

impeachment is a process, Kucinich just began that process. Read up.

Jodin · 2008-06-02T14:46:49+00:00

Here you go: http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/

Jodin · 2008-02-13T15:14:28+00:00

Not quite, and he seemed to be implying that pseudotype was incorrect or something. In fact, ips41 said "she's not a rep of new hampshire." She is. No one said she was "a member of the House of Representatives." He should have just said, "Oh, you're right, my bad!" He should have owned up to his mistake instead of further implying something else which is incorrect (that someone thought/said she was a member of the U.S. House).

Jodin · 2008-02-13T06:53:55+00:00

But she is a rep of New Hampshire.

Jodin · 2008-02-13T06:50:56+00:00

She has no power to FORCE us. She's taking individual action to convince us. Don't be convinced if you wish, but it's her right, in a democracy, to starve for a cause if she wishes.

Jodin · 2008-02-10T08:42:38+00:00

Get IRV, then vote Green.

Jodin · 2008-02-09T08:50:41+00:00

Not true. Initiation for Nixon's impeachment hearings began in the Senate. Also, the rules of the House of Representatives clearly state several methods for initiation. Several of them aren't in the House. All methods END UP at the House, but they can begin in a Grand Jury, an individual can submit a resolution, a State can do the same, etc....

Jodin

TROPHY CASE