OT: What constitutes a "High Crime or Misdemeanor"?

What's most important is what they BOTH did - LIE to the American public. What will they LIE about next, etc., etc.

To answer your heading, any wrongdoing that you can get 1/2 of the house and 2/3 of the senate to agree on.

It's questionable whether breaking that law is what could get Bush in hot water. If a court determined that Congress had exceeded its authority in limiting the President (I believe the law is questionable in that regard), it would be all over for prosecution under the law.

Where Bush could be in trouble is over violation of the Constitution. I've been trying to dig into Cheney's assertions of Bush's authority today, specifically his role as Commander in Chief, and I don't yet see what they're getting at. He's Commander in Chief of the armed forces, not of the people. He's President of the people, and he has no authority to abrogate the protection against unreasonable searches, no matter what Congress says.

Cheney must have something up his sleeve here but we'd have to see the legal opinions of the Justice Dept. My gut feeling is that they're reaching 'way over the top, trying to justify something close to war powers to spy on US citizens. If the Court followed normal precedent, I don't think they'd get away with it.

But you'd need a Constitutional lawyer for that one. In fact, you'd need several: two to argue with each other, and a third one to tell us what's going on.

-- Ed Huntress

Gettin' a little wasn't the real problem; It was not taking responsibility for it. How do you define "is"? "Possibly" misinterpreting Congresses' do what it takes (necessary force, etc.) in order to protect American lives AND taking responsibility for it is a bit different. Shame the dems aren't as protective of the Second Amendment. Respectfully, Ron Moore

"Ed Huntress" wrote

Sensible Americans would refer to "our commander in chief" with exactly the same reverence as they refer to "our chauffeur". One is hired to drive our limo, the other is hired to command our military. But the Republicans have tried very hard to sell the alternate implication of "our commander in chief", namely "the person we answer to".

They will not change their tune until "our commander in chief" is ever named Hillary or Barak instead of Dubya.

-- TP

Yes, we must protect the rights of people in America, not necessarily citizens...even if they are on the phone with UBL planning to kill our children...you know, the children that the Dems couldn't get their coat hangers into.

Politics were set aside when bush's lies only got what 50 somthing % of the vote. The crime started when the sandbox excuse was falsely perpetrated to line the pockets of the family of friends. Correct your mistakes. Impeach him now... vote for someone like Michael Moore! Then find Osama not by accident.

The administration is alleging that Congress granted Bush this authority in their use of force resolution regarding Afghanistan. They are sighting a resolution as though it were the act of Congress that was never proposed - a declaration of war. This twisted legal opinion has just been delivered by no less a constitutional scholar than Harriet Meyers herself and Alberto Gonzales. Ali G ain't got nothin' on these guys....

You don't GET it. If they can remove the first by executive fiat, they can certainly do the same with the second.

Now, please tell me exactly which parts of the bill of rights you are willing to do without.

And remember, if you say you can do without a bit of it, you don't get *any* of it.

Jim

In 1972 the Federal Court said the President couldn't spy on US citizens without a warrant.

In 1978 Congress set up the special secret court to rapidly grant warrants. They also required that if the executive branch did have to spy first that the executive branch had to go to the court within 72 hours.

The court has rejected less than one tenth of one percent of the warrants requested (2002-2004).

So if it was so important to listen in, why not just do it and get the warrant within 72 hours? Its been now what 39 months??

So the Second Amendment is unassailable but the Fourth is open to interpretation? Sorry but if you are in for a dime you are in for a dollar. In case you have no clue: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That does not say anything about "except when the president decided different". Just in case you want to argue that it says nothing about phone calls or e-mail, if we are to interpret "a well regulated militia" in a strictly literal way we must interpret "papers and effects" just as strictly.

The fact is that they spend millions to gather the information. Why couldn't they budget a few thou to have judges on call 24 hours a day to issue warrants? Is it possible that the Dubya didn't want anyone to see what was going on? We have already found that the DOD's own Counterintelligence Field Activity has been illegally gathering information on peaceful organizations exercising their constitutional rights to protest the war. Where is the limit?

The sheer gall of it surprises me.

-- Ed Huntress

I see your point and agree, I just hate the idea of bad people using our laws against us and I have yet to hear about any innocent people getting "hurt", just a bunch of politicos screaming righteous indignation...and a chance to sling mud.

Ed, It's spectacular for many reasons. Bush has recently been alleged to have disparaged the Constitution to his staff. He has always shown an inclination to act on the belief that he is

100 percent correct in his assessments and judgments. He has exercised himself in the past ( Schiavo ) in an end run around due process and states rights. And he has now publicly admitted the commission of multiple felonies and made direct statements that he would continue to do so while thumbing his nose at the constitution, the Law, the oath of office he swore, and the other two branches of our government all seemingly without the slightest pretext. FISA allows immediate surveillance without consent and you don't get quicker than that. He will, however, gain something very valuable, plausible deniability. Under FISA, it takes a signed document either before or after the fact to get a warrant. That document, and any warrant issued, would bear both the appropriate administration signatures as well as the names of those to be surveilled. It should surprise absolutely no one when the misuse of Bush's executive order comes to light, and we both know it will. Bush and the rest will be able to claim that their ignorance renders them legaly harmless for any such act and they will be correct in that. The manner of their harmlessness is quite another matter. It'll be interesting to see whether our elected representatives take the oath they all swore seriously or not. IOW, are they serious defenders of American freedoms or unprincipled poseurs? That is the only real question on the table.

Absent real concequences for these acts, George Walker Bush has finished the job begun by Osama Bin Laden ad he did it in record time without the necessity of further terrorist attacks inside the continental United States.

Anyone calling themselves an American Patriot ought to have been stopped dead in their tracks with this latest revelation and the administrations attitude regarding and their defense of these acts.

I love my country, but I fear my government...

There is no limit Glenn! Since the second world war the Allies have had an agreement where my spy agency spys on your people and your spy agency spies on my people. We then exchange information. " Echelon" was set up decades ago and it never stopped. I has been over fifty years and we still don't know all the dirty tricks that allowed the Allies to win the war. In some ways I don't think I really would want to know. Constitutions and Charter of Rights are just legal stuff. What is really happening out there has nothing to do with anything being legal. One can only be secure by being insignificant and anonymous. Randy

That does not say anything about "except when the president decided different". Just in case you want to argue that it says nothing about phone calls or e-mail, if we are to interpret "a well regulated militia" in a strictly literal way we must interpret "papers and effects" just as strictly.

The fact is that they spend millions to gather the information. Why couldn't they budget a few thou to have judges on call 24 hours a day to issue warrants? Is it possible that the Dubya didn't want anyone to see what was going on? We have already found that the DOD's own Counterintelligence Field Activity has been illegally gathering information on peaceful organizations exercising their constitutional rights to protest the war. Where is the limit?

-- Glenn Ashmore

"Tom Gardner" wrote

You will probably feel differently when the President is Hillary, and Republicans are the minority "politicos".

The whole point of the rule of law is that we assign powers to _offices_, not to individuals. If you can accept what _this_ President is doing, you will have a hard time objecting when some _other_ President does the same thing.

So, make excuses for Dick and Dubya if you like, but remember: after 2008, somebody else will have the powers you are willing to give to "the President" today.

-- TP

You're asking the wrong crowd. Over here with the neocons the answer is clearly the nookie that should be punished with impeachment, ... oh I forgot, it was.

Abrasha

My understanding, and I'm NOT a constitutional lawyer, is that the president DOES have the authority to request spying/search/seizure etc. of a SPECIFIC individual or group, with regards to a SPECIFIC case or cause, at any time he determines it is needed. But, he DOESN'T have the authority to give a government agency BLANKET authorization to do spying, etc. on US citizens, with or WITHOUT the surveillance act. The act just makes clear that these searches are not permitted, the constitution already forbids them without court order.

Jon