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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (22555)	6/16/2005 10:45:04 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360941

I question SOTU. No oath. In the SOTU the President is required by the constitution to tell the Congress the State of the Nation .... not some made up lie. The oath is unnecessary because it cannot be refused, the President must tell the truth or he is impeached! TP

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (22555)	6/16/2005 11:04:21 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360941

George Will on impeachment: "Hamilton believed that "energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government." So it is significant that when the three authors of the Federalist Papers got around to explicating the Constitution's impeachment provisions, James Madison and John Jay ceded to Hamilton, a supporter of a strong presidency, the delicate task of interpreting impeachment as a weapon for disciplining executives who use their energy in inappropriate ways. Impeachment, Hamilton argued in Federalist 65, concerns "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." In Federalist 77 he asked, does the Constitution provide "safety, in the republican sense -- a due dependence on the people"? He said it does because, among other reasons, a president is "at all times liable to impeachment." But for what? A familiar flippancy, that grounds for impeachment are whatever the House of Representatives says, is akin to the notion that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. That only means there is no appeal from the Court, not that the Court cannot construe the Constitution incorrectly. Twenty-four years ago a study written (with the participation of Hillary Rodham) for the House committee considering impeachment of Richard Nixon said: "From the comments of the Framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly."