Posted on 06/29/2004 6:01:46 AM PDT by Undertow
Please! Article II section one contain the required part of the oath and the legality of impeachment. Please do you homework!
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States issue and order
Like it, agree with it, but looking for something more 'marketable'. ;-)
Read further. They impeached him because he kept Vetoing their bills. We have the opposite problem with Bush.
Article I section 7
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[3] If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."
Like so many things libertarian, that is far too verbose. ;)
Right. WJC was impeached for leaving his stain on a blue dress.
Right. WJC was impeached for leaving his stain on a blue dress.
Sarcasm, dude....sarcasm.
Geez, try to keep up, will ya?
Actually, Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath and for suborning perjury.
Please help me. You said the president had no veto authority in 1948. Please explain.
To the Senate:
I return herewith, without my approval, Senate Joint Resolution 59, authorizing the President of the United States of America to proclaim Armed Services Honor Day for the recognition and appreciation of the patriotic devotion to duty of all members of all branches of the armed military and naval forces of the United States of America.
The measure designates December 7, 1943, as Armed Services Honor Day
Franklin Roosevelt was the first chief executive to read a veto message personally to Congress, and he even defied the unwritten canon against vetoing a revenue measure when in 1944 he turned down a tax bill on the grounds that it benefited the greedy rather than the needy. According to one credible tale, FDR used to ask his aides to look out for a piece of legislation he could veto, in order to remind Congress that it was being watched.[50]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm
FDR ranks number one with number of vetos.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878475.html
Here's the exchange that took place.
Badeye:
Yep, and the political realities of 2000 are not comparable to 1948.
Me:
Right... there was no such thing as a presidential veto in 1948.
I didn't think I needed a sarcasm tag, but I forgot that some of those who are sarcasm challenged may not have understood.
I do not understand your sarcasm. It seems to imply that FDR did not veto bills when in fact he was the #1 president in number of bills vetoed. He even told his aides that sometimes he vetoed bills just to keep congress on their toes.
Perhaps you should read the entire exchange between myself and Badeye.
I was making the point that GWB did not veto CFR, and should have if "the buck stops here".
I hate when I have to explain everything to you.
If you can't figure it out for yourself, why bother?
Makes sense to me from a point of view understanding the heart of the Libertarian Party platform - government hands off EVERYTHING.
They are rightly pissed off about CFR.
Conservatives ought to be too, instead of pissing and moaning and making pothead jokes about Libertarians.
Hypocrites aplenty...
Exactly my problem. ;-)
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.