Kucinich Brings Articles of Impeachment Against Bush

I started to post this entry last night, but it was already late and my computer was running incredibly slow. I found out why when I went to re-boot--Microsoft wanted to install some sort of update. At any rate, I apologize for an entryless day.

I also want to thank you guys for some excellent commentary lately. I want to make my own comments about yours later today. Time to take care of business.

About a month ago, we were having a discussion about the reasons that Bush should probably be impeached, but won't be. Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann reported on Rep. Dennis Kucinich bringing Articles of Impeachment against President Bush.

There are two video segments you want to watch. The first features a Constitutional Scholar from Georgetown University who discusses why he and other scholars are dismayed by the precedent being set by not impeaching Bush. The second segment with Howard Fineman discusses the practical political reasons why impeachment will be relegated to the Judiciary Committee to die on the vine.

To me, this is another illustration of what could be the positive aspects of having a Third Party represented in the Congress. (Doubtless, there could be drawbacks, as well. For now let's focus on a Third Party in this scenario.) If we had a Congress where two of the Partys had 40% each of the membership and a Third Party had 20%, then you would have a further check and balance on the Executive Branch. The Third Party would become a swing vote in the process. The fact one party could combine its 40% with the Third Party's 20% to constitute the majority needed to successfully Impeach would be a powerful incentive for the Executive Branch to govern inclusively rather than arbitrarily. Similarly, the necessity to get the concurrence of the Third Party to proceed with an Impeachment would be a check against frivolous attempts to Impeach.

I've got to run and don't have time to mull the other pro's and con's. Let me know what you think.

Here's the link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25085356


 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 6/13/2008 12:36 PM Peter Manale wrote:
    Assumption: presidential pardons cannot be granted for possible FUTURE charges that have not been brought up yet.
    I would like to think (although I know I would be wrong!) that the Democrats are deliberately not pursuing serious investigations and pressing charges into the possible illegal actions of many in the Bush adminstration until AFTER Bush is out of office. That way he would not be able to grant them get-out-of-jail-free presidential pardons as incentives to not blow the whistle. Is this how the law works?
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.