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: TigerPaw who wrote (1702)	7/16/2005 11:22:18 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542158

Can you cite any other precedent where an item in the State of the Union became an issue in a criminal trial? I can't think of one. And I never heard anyone saying the intent of that clause in the Constitution is comparable to testifying under oath. I know many folks think it should be, but I am interested in actual precedent and practice.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (1702)	7/19/2005 6:47:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542158

They would have found something, even if they had to settle for littering, they settled for a civil case. Neither the civil case, not a case about littering could have resulted in impeachment if Clinton did not lie under oath. And of course the littering case never would have happened anyway. Even if someone actually did bring littering charges (very unlikely), Clinton wouldn't have been compelled to testify. Normally he would just pay a fine with no court case, and if there was such a case he could take the 5th, or just say "I did it" and then pay the fine. 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. A demand which Bush complied with. The constitution does not specifically call for anual state of the union addresses, but that has become the tradition and it certainly fills the requirements. It does not say that the President will make up lies for Congress You haven't established that he has done any such thing. In any case as long as accurate information was also conveyed than he would have given information to congress. The state of the union based argument is as silly as your talk of littering charges. this information must be accurate or it is a violation of the Constitution, not just a minor infraction If you testify under oath in front of congress than you can be charged if you make a lie. Otherwise politicians are fairly free to lie and they often do. Its not even a minor infraction. Tim