Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: truedog who wrote (819)	7/10/1999 7:14:00 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 769670

truedog, "Were the charges brought against Andrew Johnson really based on constitutional law? All he tried to do was ease the abuse being perpetrated against a beaten enemy who had already suffered greatly." This really puzzled me! I either haven't made myself clear or you have misunderstood my statement(s). I had some difficulty relating your comment to me previous post. What I came up with...referring back to my previous post, "There were also a large number of Constitutional scholars (liberal and conservative) that asserted that the charges did not rise to Constitutionally impeachable offenses." The operative phrase is Constitutionally impeachable offenses, i.e., are the offenses or charges consistent with what the framers intended as impeachable offenses. Your phrased question...Were the charges brought against Andrew Johnson really based on constitutional law?....is confusing. If I may rephrase the question: Did Andrew Johnson's offenses rise to Constitutionally impeachable offenses? The answer is no. If you had some other intended meaning, I'm not clear as to what it was. Re: "On previous posts you have wondered if you were a liberal. IMO, you have subsequently removed all doubt." There were several points made in my post..I pointed to the fact that there were both liberal and conservative Constitutional scholars that asserted that the offenses were not Constitutionally impeachable offenses. So having the opinion that they were not impeachable offense [which I do hold] does not define one as a liberal. I'm certain that are exists liberals who hold the offenses were impeachable. I made some other statements about the Speaker [noting that I don't use disrespectful name calling] and suggested some appearances of impropriety. What you seem to be telling me, by your conclusion, is that a conservative cannot acknowledge fact if it is critical of the party or even suggest that facts have an appearance of improper behavior. If that's true, that's sad. Further, if it is true, I wouldn't want to be a conservative. Regards, Jim