Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Censuring a President

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    229

    Default Censuring a President

    Today, Sen. Russ Feingold announced plans to introduce in the United States Senate, a motion of censure against the POTUS.

    The entire official release can be found here: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold.../20060312.html

    As Sen. Fiengold states in his release:

    “The President must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality,” Feingold said. “The President’s actions, as well as his misleading statements to both Congress and the public about the program, demand a serious response. If Congress does not censure the President, we will be tacitly condoning his actions, and undermining both the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
    This action has precident already set. The United States Senate, on 28 March 1834, voted to censure then President Andrew Jackson for Jackson's refusal to turn over documents to the Senate relating to his veto of an act to re-charter the Bank of the United States.

    A summation of the Jackson presidency and censure can be found here: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/..._President.htm
    and here:
    http://www.americanpresident.org/his...printable.html

    Interestingly, Jackson was the receintly re-elected Democratic incumbent. The makeup of the Senate at the time, showed Jackson-Democrats to hold a majority over the Republican party that had supported Henry Clay. But Clay's Republician supporters along with anti-Jackson Democrats, met to form a third party, the Whigs, with the sole objective to be to get Jackson for his stance on the Bank of the United States. This was UNPRECIDENTED ACTION in the chambers of the United States Senate.

    So the precident has been set.

    But, after his recovery from a case of the vapors, Sen. Bill Frist, the good, loyal Bushivic he is, immediently shrieked:

    ...Feingold's motion would never reach the full Senate
    and added
    ...the ubiquitous treason insinuiation by claiming Feingold's motion sends a "terrible, terrible signal" to our enemies.
    I would remind Sen. Frist of the words of one of the GOP's (and a few Cp'ers) favorite sons.

    To announce that there must be no critism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.

    Teddy Roosevelt - 1918

  2. #2
    dhyatt's Avatar
    dhyatt is offline Super Moderator Five Year Club
    Site Supporter
    Site Admin
    3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    4,743

    Default Re: Censuring a President

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg
    Today, Sen. Russ Feingold announced plans to introduce in the United States Senate, a motion of censure against the POTUS.

    The entire official release can be found here: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold.../20060312.html

    As Sen. Fiengold states in his release:

    [snip]
    [Engage CPTEPN]

    Today, Sen. Russ Feingold announced plans to seek the Democratic nomintation for President for 2008.

    [Disengage CPTEPN]

    <hr>

    CPTEPN - Cary Politics Translation Engine for the Politically Naive (tm)
    Don Hyatt
    Webmaster
    CaryPolitics.org

  3. #3
    DarylB Guest

    Default Re: Censuring a President

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg
    Today, Sen. Russ Feingold announced plans to introduce in the United States Senate, a motion of censure against the POTUS.
    And yet another translation, democrats, still trying to compensate for their impeached Clinton losses, yet again overreach and make total asses of themselves....a never ending saga!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Well if Don's tranlsation is correct, I know all you Republicans are upset. Oh. c'mon now, admit it. You were HOPING for Hilary. :P

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    229

    Default Re: Censuring a President

    Quote Originally Posted by dhyatt
    [Engage CPTEPN]

    Today, Sen. Russ Feingold announced plans to seek the Democratic nomintation for President for 2008.

    [Disengage CPTEPN]

    <hr>

    CPTEPN - Cary Politics Translation Engine for the Politically Naive (tm)
    Ya' know, when I put John McCain's receint loving embrace of 'intelligent design' into the same search engine, it came back with:

    Pandering to the extreme right because he plans to seek the Republician nomination for President in 2008

    And I also noticed that you didn't respond to the information. Since there is not a Karl Rove/GOP official talking points memo released yet, go with the tried and true, "Kill the messanger approach"? Ignore it and it might go away seems to be the way the GOP works these days...

  6. #6
    dhyatt's Avatar
    dhyatt is offline Super Moderator Five Year Club
    Site Supporter
    Site Admin
    3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    4,743

    Default Re: Censuring a President

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg
    Quote Originally Posted by dhyatt
    [Engage CPTEPN]

    Today, Sen. Russ Feingold announced plans to seek the Democratic nomintation for President for 2008.

    [Disengage CPTEPN]

    <hr>

    CPTEPN - Cary Politics Translation Engine for the Politically Naive (tm)
    Ya' know, when I put John McCain's receint loving embrace of 'intelligent design' into the same search engine, it came back with:

    Pandering to the extreme right because he plans to seek the Republician nomination for President in 2008
    That sounds about right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg
    And I also noticed that you didn't respond to the information. Since there is not a Karl Rove/GOP official talking points memo released yet, go with the tried and true, "Kill the messanger approach"? Ignore it and it might go away seems to be the way the GOP works these days...
    I don't need anybody to tell me it's a ridiculous stunt that doesn't stand a chance of even coming to a vote, much less actually passing. Relax You should be resting easier now that the Dubai Ports deal collapsed. I can't wait for the vote on a subsidy for the "American owned entity" that will get the management contracts instead and I'll laugh my *** off if Haliburton or one of their subsidiaries winds up with the deal.
    Don Hyatt
    Webmaster
    CaryPolitics.org

  7. #7
    dhyatt's Avatar
    dhyatt is offline Super Moderator Five Year Club
    Site Supporter
    Site Admin
    3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    4,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonya
    Well if Don's tranlsation is correct, I know all you Republicans are upset. Oh. c'mon now, admit it. You were HOPING for Hillary. :P
    A Hillary candidacy would be entertaining
    Did I mention yet that I've seen a couple of Condi '08 bumper stickers around? Hillary vs. Condi would be a something to watch, that's for sure...
    Don Hyatt
    Webmaster
    CaryPolitics.org

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    Donh writes

    I'll laugh my a** off if Haliburton or one of their subsidiaries winds up with the deal.
    For as much presence Haiburton has in Dubai (and it is ALOT...quite ALOT) you probably can start trying to pick up that a** that may fall off. You may be closer to correct than you think. I'll be in Dubai next week.....perhaps I will get a different take on the whole subject then...

    Hillary vs. Condi would be a something to watch, that's for sure...
    In my younger days, this is what would be called a good old cat fight!

    Rono
    Fear, are you STILL being manipulated by it?


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    546

    Default


  10. #10
    DarylB Guest

    Default Well, the topic IS censuring a President, so.......

    Since the topic is what it is.....

    Quote Originally Posted by The Associated Press
    Senators still considering whether to censure Clinton
    By David Espo, Associated Press writer

    WASHINGTON -- With President Clinton's acquittal on impeachment charges virtually assured, Senate Republicans and Democrats are quietly jockeying over how strongly -- if at all -- he should be censured for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his efforts to conceal it.
    Democrats, ready to vote overwhelmingly and possibly unanimously against conviction, favor a formal condemnation. Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York are leading a drafting effort in hopes the Senate will vote on it at when the trial ends late next week. A recent draft cited Clinton for "shameless, reckless and indefensible behavior" and said his conduct demeaned his office and "creates disrespect for the laws of the land."
    Some Republicans favor censure, including Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island, who says of Clinton's behavior, "We believe this is just plain wrong ...that it's harmful for the nation."
    There are obvious difficulties in reaching agreement on terms satisfactory to both Democrats and Republicans.
    "I'm afraid that once the (Democratic proposal) is out, there will be many critics of the president who will argue it's not strong enough, and if this turns into an escalation of humiliation, it will fall apart," Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois said Friday.
    Some Republicans are opposed to censure, and one, Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, has all but threatened a filibuster to block it, in part on constitutional grounds. "You either remove the president (by convicting him on an article of impeachment) or you have no ability to transcend the line that represents the separation of power," he said in a telephone interview.
    Majority Leader Trent Lott has yet to disclose his position. His spokesman, John Czwartacki, said the Mississippi Republican "has real concerns" about censure, including a fear it may set a dangerous constitutional precedent. "Are we going to be in the business of censuring any president that comes along for policy differences?" he asked.
    There are political factors at play, as well.
    Some Republican strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, say they fear that Democrats favoring acquittal on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice would point to their censure vote to immunize themselves against accusations that they let Clinton escape punishment.
    These Republicans concede, however, that some GOP senators also will oppose conviction on at least one article of impeachment and may want to go on record in favor of censure.
    In the interview, Gramm spoke dismissively of the political maneuvering.
    "Censure is driven by a desire of politicians to have it both ways," he said. "They want to vote yes and no, guilty and not guilty at the same time. Censure lets them do it."
    Democrats are operating on the assumption that Republicans will try to end the trial without a formal vote. That would be turnabout, after Democrats united to oppose a Republican plan to declare Clinton guilty of wrongdoing as part of the trial.
    But even if the Senate begins a winter vacation at the end of next week without a vote on censure, Democrats say they could resurrect the issue when lawmakers return to Washington. One option is to attempt to add a provision censuring the president to unrelated legislation.
    However it turns out, the current censure debate is the residue of earlier suggestions for more tangible penalties against the president.
    The suggestion of a fine -- once envisioned by House Democrats as part of what they dubbed "censure plus" -- has faded. "Bad, bad, bad," Moynihan said of that idea at one point. "I'm sure the people who are proposing it are doing so in perfectly good faith. Impeachment is not about punishment. The Constitution is very clear," added the New Yorker.
    Also discarded are suggestions that Clinton would agree voluntarily to reimburse the government for the costs that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr incurred investigating the Lewinsky matter. Nor has there been any talk lately of stripping the president of his government pension.
    As recently as December, House Democrats battling against impeachment drafted harshly worded legislation that Clinton would be required to sign in acknowledgment of "this censure and condemnation." Even the idea of a presidential signature on the instrument of his censure seems to have been abandoned, at least for now.
    Clinton virtually invited Congress to censure him several months ago. But in public, at least, the White House is staying out of the current debate.
    "It'll be up to the Senate to decide how they want to move forward," spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters.

    David Espo is AP's chief congressional correspondent.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •