Why is there such silence on this issue?
We've got our own little mini impeachment drama playing out in our little village tonight. The formerly popular Republican mayor is trailing the Democratic challanger by 49% to 51% with 80% of the vote in. The Rep incumbent mayor has pissed away over 4 million dollars in tax payer money on appeals of lawsuits that the Village had almost no hope of winning. The most notorious involving a group of migrant workers who sued the village for discrimination after the cops staged a crackdown on them where they congregated looking for work. Hope the Dem challangers lead holds up.
Posted by snark at November 6, 2007 08:03 PMWell, SoS, it is election night.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 6, 2007 08:15 PMOne precinct left and its still 49% to 51%. Only a 54 vote difference with 3200+ votes cast!
Posted by snark at November 6, 2007 08:20 PMFDL folks were impromptu liveblogging this. God damn, it fucking THRILLED me.
Kucinich, the little ridiculous wacko UFO dwarf, mopped up the floor with Hoyer and Pelosi, showed himself a masterful strategist, and above all a LEADER.
Why shouldn't this motherfucker be president? All his positions are those of the people of this country.
Cheney tyranny can be turned on its ass, on a dime. Dennis showed this today and I hope he keeps doing it. People power is us, folks. I feel like quitting my fucking job to work for this guy.
Election night? We had one local issue on the ballot, raise taxes for the schools or leave property taxes alone. No big election to speak of here in this suburb of Phoenix, AZ.
We are in the middle of a heat wave though. Been in the low 90's, when we are supposed to be around the high 70's. And it's supposed to be like this all week.
15 degrees above normal, consistently, I love the weather but this is a bit much.
Hey Seven, you get the privilege of living in the Phoenix area. Quit your complaining.
Posted by peter at November 6, 2007 09:06 PMHey folks, just an excercise, the vice president can preside on all impeachment trials except that of the president when the Chief Justice presides. Who presides on an impeachment trial of a vice president? Where in the Constitution is the impeachment process writen purtaining to the office of the vice president? Or does the senate's right of expulsion apply?
Posted by peter at November 6, 2007 09:21 PM"Who presides on an impeachment trial of a vice president?"
Presumably no one could imagine a Vice President doing anything significant enough to warrant impeachment (until Dick came along), which was certainly an accurate reflection of the office's character for the first two centuries or so of our nation's history. And it's another argument against the VP being given extensive executive responsibilities.
Posted by Judith at November 7, 2007 03:43 AMSeems like it might be irrelevant about whom presides over the impeachment of the Vice President.
1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?
A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.
2. Q: Why is it so simple?
A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.
3. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice president based on the notion that the person of greater authority – the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his administration?
A: No, none whatsoever.
5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of evidence?
A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 5 (2), says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAX20051105&articleId=1185
"and who convinced them to change their votes in the first place?"
A man in a black trench coast and fedora handed an envelope to each of them and smiled.
Scratch that last comment by me.
Posted by Judith at November 7, 2007 04:41 AMI still plan on voting for Kucinich in the primary. I encourage others to also vote for him.
Posted by JohnT at November 7, 2007 05:35 AMSharkbabe: "...Why shouldn't this motherfucker [Kucinich] be president? All his positions are those of the people of this country...."
Because the korporate media will NOT treat him as a serious candidate and continues to prop up Dear Leader and Darth Cheney. But pants-pissing peter still thinks we have a "liberal" media.
I'm confused...does this mean we are or are not going to impeach Cheney?
Posted by T2 at November 7, 2007 07:33 AMIt appears the impeachment consideration moved the Judiciary Committee and Conyers. Kucinich already has a bill of impeachment dying the death of neglect and this new one will reside beside it unless Conyers gets the message he should proceed to consider it. Then the Committee needs to vote on it (I presume as a recommendation back to the full House).
Posted by Gtash at November 7, 2007 07:59 AMI also read that Kucinich can keep doing this as many times as he likes. It is a privilege-motion or some such thing that Representatives can do.
Posted by gtash at November 7, 2007 08:01 AMThe "news" section of the Mighty Google search engine/web site has managed to blackout any discussion today (11-7-07) of yesterday's House actions on the Resolution for Impeachment of VP Cheney... (you have to search for it on their "news" site).
In a side note on Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Resolution for the Impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, our right-wing San Francisco Chronicle could not get the words “Impeachment” and “Cheney” in their two headlines on the subject. The Chron preferred to say “censure” and “debate”… The Chronicle is still protecting and covering up for the traitorous Cheney and Bush…
Posted by james k. sayre at November 7, 2007 09:45 AMas the Republic slowly dies
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 7, 2007 11:19 AMHey Seven, you get the privilege of living in the Phoenix area. Quit your complaining.
Hey fuckwad, you pay my A/C bill and I'll quit complaining!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 7, 2007 02:05 PMDennis Kucinich is a True Patriot that will always be remembered for this, and here's hoping he introduces it again. So what if the Republicans are sneering and daring the Dems to make the case. It's not a difficult case to make, and those who believe in the Constitution and our democracy don't care what the calendar says or what else is going on. Impeachment should always be on the table. Any congressperson who acts to take it off the table is neglecting his or her duties.
Again, Dennis Kucinich, Rock On. I'll be sending some money his way on this issue alone, though there are countless more he is right on.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 7, 2007 03:55 PMOh, and thanks to Erin for writing about it and to SoS for asking a crucial question in the very first comment on this thread.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 7, 2007 03:56 PM