So, let's see where we are.

[avevale_intelligencer]

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat from Ohio) has been talking on OpEdNews here about Obama's actions with regard to Libya being unconstitutional and about how he really should be impeached. Only he isn't going to do it himself because he doesn't want to get his hands destabilise the political process.

This chap has been in Congress since 1997. He's presumably been awake for at least some of that time. And this is the president he wants to see impeached? Who's maybe looking at having another crack at the top spot next year? (That last may be a boneheadedly stupid supposition on my part, since I'm weak on the timings of American candidacies, but I haven't heard about any nominations yet, and it's getting closish and this looks like taking up a position.)

But here's our chance. (Well. Yours.) This fellow is a Democrat, probably, and keen on the letter of the Constitution. Any Ohio folks willing to write to him and ask him what he thinks about entities other than the Government creating money--whether he thinks it only applies to silver dollars, or maybe was intended to encompass any other form that money might take in the future, whether paper, plastic or computer-number?

I'd certainly be interested in his answer.

Also, if Obama gets impeached for taking America into war, this universe is FIRED. I can tolerate a lot of things, but excessive silliness is not one of them, and my patience is already worn so thin you can see through it.

Further random thought; if you're going to have true separation of powers, nobody involved with the legislative branch should be eligible to be nominated for the executive.

Further further random thought; the cat has just knocked my keyboard on the floor. This is why I wanted that other keyboard stand back. I remember now.

Comments

[howeird]

Sorry, you do not remember correctly. Bush was given Congressional approval to make war on Iraq. http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War. His impeachable offense was in his lying and manufacturing evidence. He would never have been impeached either, largely because his daddy owns the government.

[howeird]

I did not say Bush should not have been impeached. I just said he was given permission to make war on Iraq. My representative voted against it, because as a member of the House Intelligence Committee she knew WMDs were a lie.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

His "permission" was received by lying and manufacturing evidence. Therefore, any permission granted base on it was, by his own actions, immediately rescinded. The jury cannot be blamed when the evidence presented is faulty. The fault remains with the presenter of the evidence.

You're making a strictly logical assertion based on a preferred interpretation of the facts. It is also immediately invalidated for the same reason.

[howeird]

Well said, Melody, but I see it from a different angle. At the time of the vote it was not clear whether or not WMDs existed. The only way to know for sure was on-the-ground inspections. Bush (correctly, I think) said that Hussein would never allow inspections unless there was a threat of war.

Where Bush lied was in his assurances to Congress that he would not go to war if inspections did not show WMDs.

Congress could have rescinded permission, but they did not. They still have not.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Ah, gotcha. I may be remembering the information correctly, but it's also entirely possible it was incorrect information anyway, so. *shrugs*

That said, considering it was approved on false intelligence, it's not much better, really.