PDA

View Full Version : Wanton Removal = Impeachable Offense


dharmabum
03-31-2007, 02:54 PM
This idea that the President can just go around wantonly firing appointed officers for politcial reasons is a load of bull.

Wanton removal of a meritorious officer was one of the reasons that President Andrew Johnson was impeached.

From the articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson: (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html)

ARTICLE I.

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 in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such Secretary, and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having been suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeing of said Senate, that is to say, on the 12th day of December, in the year last aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting og the Senate, and said Senate thereafterward, on the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and having been refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and siad Edwin Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of February, being lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868

SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of their communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, paper and other public property now in your custody and charge.
Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON.
Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War

Which order was unlawfully issued, and with intent then are there to violate the act entitled "An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office," passed March 2, 1867; and, with the further intent contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, the said Edwin M. Stanton being then and there Secretary of War, and being then and there in the due and lawful execution of the duties of said office, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

Decka
03-31-2007, 04:36 PM
well then go ahead and impeach him if he did an impeachable offense...

dharmabum
04-01-2007, 09:00 AM
well then go ahead and impeach him if he did an impeachable offense...

That is precisely what I told Senator Stabenow to do when I met with her yesterday.

Do you seriously believe I restrict my voice to this little forum?
This is just a practice area.

Where do you think the 53 investigations going on in Congress right now are all leading?

They are letting the evidence pile up so that impeachment is a given.

Freethinker
04-01-2007, 09:40 AM
Where do you think the 53 investigations going on in Congress right now are all leading?

They are letting the evidence pile up so that impeachment is a given.

Bush will not be impeached.

To impeach a president requires that you first use the Corporate propaganda apparatus (i.e., the mainstrean Media) to convince tens of millions of ignorant drones that the president has committed some horrendous abuse of power that is a matter of national importance (like having sex with a staffer) and that he truly deserves to BE impeached.

Naturally, the propaganda arm of the Rightwing --the Media-- easily accomplished that when a former president had naughty naught sex.

Do NOT, however, think for one minute that they are going to do it when a sainted Republican is in office, and has done nothing more than commit violations of the U.S. Constitution, commit the United States to acts of war on the basis of blatant lies and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law, and commit high crimes against the State and crimes against humanity.

________________________________

Today, the government in the United States of America constitutes an international criminal conspiracy under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, that is legally identical to the Nazi government in World War II Germany. Bush and his co-conspirator's wanton extermination of approximately 600,000 People in Iraq provides definite proof of the validity of this Nuremberg Proposition for the entire world to see. Bush and his co-conspirator's agenda sounds and looks strikingly similar to the one proclaimed by Adolph Hitler over fifty years ago. A progressive and democratized Iraq is not created with stealth bombers, Abrams tanks, and tomahawk cruise missiles. For their own good and the good of all humanity, the American People must condemn and repudiate George Bush and his grotesque vision of a forever war in the Middle East that is constructed upon imperialism, bloodshed, violence and criminality.

Decka
04-01-2007, 12:29 PM
Bush will not be impeached.

To impeach a president requires that you first use the Corporate propaganda apparatus (i.e., the mainstrean Media) to convince tens of millions of ignorant drones that the president has committed some horrendous abuse of power that is a matter of national importance (like having sex with a staffer) and that he truly deserves to BE impeached.


the vote for impeachment isn't by the people.. it's by congress...

and it wasn't "sex with a staffer" that got anyone else impeached... it was that whole "lying under oath" thing..

Naturally, the propaganda arm of the Rightwing --the Media-- easily accomplished that when a former president had naughty naught sex.


if the media was the "arm" of the right wing, than how come we know about anything to do with this at all? wouldn't they just cover it up?

Do NOT, however, think for one minute that they are going to do it when a sainted Republican is in office, and has done nothing more than commit violations of the U.S. Constitution, commit the United States to acts of war on the basis of blatant lies and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law, and commit high crimes against the State and crimes against humanity.


guess the skipping record keeps going.... Bette Midler..

AAYYUUNNDDD EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY-EY

*cringes

Napsterbater
04-01-2007, 02:09 PM
That is precisely what I told Senator Stabenow to do when I met with her yesterday.

Do you seriously believe I restrict my voice to this little forum?
This is just a practice area.

Where do you think the 53 investigations going on in Congress right now are all leading?

They are letting the evidence pile up so that impeachment is a given.
I have to give you props, Dharma, for being more than an armchair philosopher.

Lungdop Philing
04-01-2007, 03:31 PM
Impeachment would be nice but...

at the moment, this administration is the gift that keeps on giving.

The longer they remain in power, drunk with arrogance and jingoism, the more costly it will be to the republican party as a whole during the '08 elections. It's already shaping up to be an a$$-kicking that will make the '06 elections look like kindergarten. That's why the dems don't start the impeachment process -- they know this is the chance to land the knock-out blow to the entire republican party and end neoconservativism, xtian whackoism, gay bashism and faux family valuesism forever. The GOP is in serious jeopardy of becoming the next WHIG party and they know it.

The dems will let the republicans destroy themselves and it will be beautiful to watch. The only hope they have of saving the party is for some of the paleocons to march to the white house and tell Bush to resign -- Nixon style.

dharmabum
04-01-2007, 03:37 PM
Bush will not be impeached.


I prefer to remain hopeful that the independant media can overcome the propaganda of the corporate media.

I am hopeful that the preponderance of evidence being gathered by the 53 investigations going on in congress right now can overcome the increasingly feeble talking points Republicans are using to try and excuse corrupt behavior.

I was happy to see Joe Biden on Fox News this morning challenging the Republican talking point that the US Attorneys are supposed to follow the dictates of the President. The President gets the pleasure of picking who serves, but they don't serve the President. They serve the Constitution.

DarkFantasy96
04-01-2007, 05:28 PM
I really like the generous use of the word "wanton" in this thread. Good word.

dharmabum
04-01-2007, 05:40 PM
I really like the generous use of the word "wanton" in this thread. Good word.

Is it making you hungry for Chinese too?

:)

DarkFantasy96
04-01-2007, 05:42 PM
Is it making you hungry for Chinese too?

:)
Nah, but it gave me the amusing mental picture of GWB frothing at the mouth and saying "YOU'RE FIRED!", like a more apelike version of Donald Trump...
:lolhit:

dharmabum
04-01-2007, 06:01 PM
Nah, but it gave me the amusing mental picture of GWB frothing at the mouth and saying "YOU'RE FIRED!", like a more apelike version of Donald Trump...


Interesting imagination you have.