American Monarchy?

Well I hope Rep. Pelosi has plenty to think about this morning. I never did get through last night but am taking it as a sign that there were plenty of folks who did and am certainly hoping that she got one strong and succinct message: Impeach this criminally incompetent President for his High Crimes and Misdemeanors and restore Honor and Integrity to the United States Government.

Since I've not been to the pond in a few days, my first blogospheric stop this morning was to go wish our froggy friend a hearty Congrats on his B-ballin' Warriors domination of the #1 seed from the NBA West. Wouldn't ya know it? Kvatch was - as usual - on his game and utterly relevant to the need for making those phone calls to the Speaker of the House.

I had no idea that Article II of the U.S. Constitution essentially gave our President the only thing he really needs in order to rule as He sees fit! Guess I should've taken those danged Evely Wood course when I had the chance, eh Frogster? {-;

At any rate, Kvatch's source from study of our founding document is FindLaw and they provide a more in depth legaleeze assessment and discussion than my own site of choice, which does a wonderful job of showing the historical context of the framers cultural mindsets, though without going as far into lawyer-speak as the FindLaw.

This brings us to a definition of Impeachable Offenses which, though the Congress may frequently (generally) find reason$ not to look at it thi$ way, is of such integral importance in restoring our Federal Government to one which is factually and functionally representative of the interests of Liberty, Justice, Peace and, lest we forget in our culture's Gimme Gimme Gimme, I want miiiiiine!!! comsumerism, Posterity.

Every freedom we lose for the sake those in power is one less our future generations will have to cherish.
Impeachable Offenses

(Par 2) Treason is defined in the Constitution; 764 bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute. 765 High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. 766 In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ''high misdemeanor'' to be quite limited in meaning, 767 but debate prior to adoption of the phrase 768 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions 769 were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.* 770 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior. 771 While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view.
Ed's note: I've come back to do a wee bit of emphasizing, as well to touch up a few typos. I hit publish before such clean-up was performed as it was time to move my car off the Bus Route street on which I park. The lalternative is a stiff fine and/or towing. No thanks.

Please also note that the numbers in the FindLaw paragraph above are link with footnotes on the linked site.

* Sound familiar?


  1. We should add "acts of complete stupidity and arrogance resulting in deaths of others" to that.

  2. Hey Michael...many thanks for the mention.

    Who would'a thunk it? Warriors dispatch the Mavericks in 6 games! I'm still in shock, but the good kind.

    Now to the topic at hand:

    McConnell's a tool, undoubltly the reason he was chosen as Director of National Intelligence, but I'm still shocked that he would utter such blatant nonsense at the hearing. It's like saying, "Well, if I read every 5th word of the Constitution, it says this..."

  3. That one really does qualify as shockin', eh Frog. Well, hmmm, or it would if it didn't explain so much about the way neoconmen go about their busyness.

    Crazy days...


Post a Comment

Popular Posts