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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1694)	7/16/2005 10:51:33 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542155

He never would have been impeached for littering, jaywalking, or having sex with an intern. They would have found something, even if they had to settle for littering, they settled for a civil case. That was obvious when they got a partisan judge David Sentelle to replace indepedant counsel Robert Fiske with Ken Starr. If you really want to talk about official lying you have to go beyond perjury. Perjury is, after all, a law passed to enforce oaths. There is a statement where lying is forbidden expressly by the Constitution. This is the State of the Union Address. Article 3 of Section 2 of the Constitution makes this demand upon the President: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, The word "shall" is a demand, and not a request. It does not say that the President will make up lies for Congress, this information must be accurate or it is a violation of the Constitution, not just a minor infraction of the ever-changing laws of Congress. If the President lied during a State of the Union address it is an inherently anti-Constitutional act and a the highest of high-crimes. TP