April 29, 2006

Illinois House members introduce bill to request U.S. Congress begin impeachment proceedings

In a bold effort to stop the madness, three members of the Illinois General Assembly have introduced a bill that urges the General Assembly to submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Commander Bunnypants, George W. Bush, for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and if found guilty urges his removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office in the United States.

The Jefferson Manual of rules for the U.S. House of Representatives makes clear that impeachment proceedings can be initiated by a state legislature submitting charges. The state of Illinois is on its way toward forcing on the House what not a single one of its members has yet had the courage to propose: Articles of Impeachment.

The text of the Illinois bill and information on its status can be viewed on the Illinois General Assembly's website.

The bill takes up the issues of illegal spying, torture, detentions without charge or trial, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, and the leaking of classified information.

Bill sponsors are:

Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough D-7th, phone (217) 782-8120 or (708) 615-1747

Rep Sara Feigenholtz D-12th, phone (217) 782-8062 or (773) 296-4141

Rep. Eddie Washington D-60th phone (217) 558-1012 or (847) 623-0060

Give them some support for representing the views of millions of Americans.

21 Comments:

At 4/29/2006 12:45 PM, Blogger Carl Nyberg said...

Hey, Dope, you're a little behind on this story.

The four patriots you listed have been joined by fourteen others.

Rep. Cynthia Soto
Rep. William Delgado
Rep. William Davis
Rep. Kenneth Dunkin
Rep. Wyvetter H. Younge
Rep. Art Turner
Rep. Esther Golar
Rep. Constance Howard
Rep. David E. Miller
Rep. Annazette Collins
Rep. Calvin Giles
Rep. Deborah Graham
Rep. Robin Kelly, and
Rep. Edward Acevedo

We've got a group of people from around Illinois coordinating online. People who want to help should join the list server.

The goal is to get the resolution out of the Rules Committee next week and to identify a lead Senate sponsor.

I know Sen. John M. Sullivan has been contacted a couple times. Patriots and great legislators know when is the right time to take a risk.

 
At 4/29/2006 12:57 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Carl, I'm not behind on the story, I simply chose not to list all of the sponsors and co-sponsors.

Obviously, since I've seen and posted the link which shows all the sponsors you list, I'm aware of where the bill stands.

I assumed readers would follow the link and see for themselves.

If someone was so devoted that they felt the need to contact each and every sponsor or co-sponsor, the entire list was easily available.

 
At 4/29/2006 1:53 PM, Blogger Carl Nyberg said...

Sorry, if I came off as critical. I'm excited that we might actually get a debate on the criminality of the Bush administration in the Illinois General Assembly.

Thanks for covering this.

 
At 4/29/2006 2:13 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Not a problem Carl, I welcome your contribution.

 
At 5/01/2006 9:46 AM, Anonymous havinfun said...

Carl,

'Crinality of the Bush Administration' - what are we talking about here, can you name what you think the impeachable offenses are?

 
At 5/01/2006 1:08 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

I'm thinking impeachment proceedings against Bush would be Karl Rove's wet dream.
For one thing, no one is going to take seriously IL demanding impeachment. IL is a blue state where all three branches of the government are controlled by Democrats. The only danger there is the risk of going deaf from the noise reverberating in the Democrat echo-chamber.

But if I remember correctly, impeachment didn't hurt Clinton at all---in fact his poll numbers went up and Republicans LOST seats in congress.

Furthermore, Clinton is not tainted by his impeachment at all---he seems to have been elected as King of the World.

So my guess is that Rove is saying "bring it on"!

Or, as I would say, Live and DON'T Learn. Whichever.

 
At 5/01/2006 1:27 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, it's probably not Carl's job to do research for you. A google search on "Bush impeachable offenses" returns thousands of results and would probably answer your question for you. It took me all of one minute to find information about this subject.

Secondly, it's important to know what an "impeachable offense" is.

The basis for impeachment comes from the US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4 which states that:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

High Crimes and Misdemeanors was left deliberately vague, but there are many writings which serve to give a general opinion of what falls into that catagory, including abuse of power.
(see http://tinyurl.com/9kjow)

There's many sources which explore this, but most consider Gerald R. Ford's 1970 definition to be the most accurate. He described an impeachable offense as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

But since you asked, here's but one list of impeachable offenses I came across.

Take your pick.

It appears that the recently exposed authorization of warrentless spying on American citizens is the most clearcut impeachable offence and many "legitimate" authors and sources have written about how Bush has clearly broken the law and violated the constitution by that action.

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

(source: http://tinyurl.com/dz54n)

 
At 5/01/2006 3:59 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

Sorry Dope, but bipartisan congress was with Bush every step of the way, even though some Democrats are lying about it. Same about Rockefeller and other Dems who were informed about spying program, who now are lying about it, and I could go, but why bother? You, and those like you will never be convinced.

Oh, I forgot another goodie about impeachment----this will fit right into the Republican's talking point about how Democrats are soft on defense and national security. Imagine! By impeaching a sitting president during a war----the Democrats would be a minority party for a generation or more.

But nevermind that----you just rock on with your bad selves. I can't wait for the Bush-hating left to get themselves into a frothing fury, just like the Clinton-hating right did.

Oh yeah, with you it'll be different. (snort!snicker!guffaw!)

 
At 5/01/2006 4:29 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

Ooops, forgot another plus about impeachment. If Bush is impeached, it is a guarantee that every President thereafter will be impeached, and will be seen by the public as just another lame political ploy by the opposition party. If Gerry Ford is correct, that an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is, impeachment will be a regular event, just like the Special Counsel/Prosecutor investigations has been just another fact of political life since Nixon.

Since impeachment seems to be a badge of honor for Clinton, I imagine it will be viewed that way by subsequent impeached Presidents and their supporters. In other words, impeachment has probably already lost it's power, but it sure gives the foam-at-the-mouth partisans something to fantasize about!

The last thing (I hope) is that everything any modern POTUS does, says or thinks is overlawyered to the nth degree, and that anyone who thinks that one day George Bush woke up and said "dammit, I'm gonna invade Iraq today, and lie about WMD to do it, 'cause nobody will ever catch me" is seriously delusional. But there seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

OT: What's up with the handicapped symbol next to the word verification box? Or does that just show up on my screen!

 
At 5/02/2006 12:03 AM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

I will start my comment by saying I think Bush deserves to be impeached, or at least confronted with some of things he has done. However, I reluctantly agree with Paladin that it is a waste of resources to move forward this this kind of bill.

Even if the House was forced to consider it, what kind of job would it do? Articles of Impeachment would never pass. Plus, the process could take forever, probably longer than Bush even has left in his turn. With a Democratic Congrss or Senate it might be quicker, but with two years left in a term, is it worth it?

I don't think Paladin is right about how bad a backlash would be, but there is certainly that risk. I think the right move is for Democrats to continue tp point out these offenses, and tie Republican Senators and Congressmen to them for not holding hearings, and use it this year's elections as well as the presidential race in 2008, but it would wise to be careful what we wish for as far as impeachment.

P.S. - I think the handicap symbol is for blind users who cannot read the word verification. By pressing the symbol, a number is read by different voices, which I imagine can be entered by the blind as an alternative verification.

 
At 5/02/2006 12:09 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

But high... how could a blind person SEE the handicapped symbol? For that matter, how could they find the links to click on them? I know there are services which read online content, but I'm not sure how they'd find links to click on.

My impression? I think it's for people who simply can't make out the often distorted and very difficult to read text.... not the blind necessarily... just normal people or people with poor sight that simply can't make out the type. I've heard from some readers who have a difficult time figuring it out, and it is a trick.

 
At 5/02/2006 6:50 AM, Anonymous havinfun said...

Dope, you are indeed the weazel that I expected. Why not put forth my previous post? Why is it that Liberals are too affraid of a reasonable debate?

Question - you are so against anything preemptive...how would YOU suggest Iran be handled? They are working towards nucleur weapons (fact). They have stated that they want to see 'Israel and the West (America) wiped off the map' - what would YOU do with this situation.

I guess that I will never know because (1) Liberals like yourself like to talk a big game, like to say how bad things are, like to point fingers, but never address real issues. Of course, like with my last post, this will never see the light of day...cause you can't handle issues that require you to state a position and solutions.

Dope is indeed an appropriate by-line...

 
At 5/02/2006 7:09 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Havingfun,

Get up on the wrong side of the bed today, did we?

I have no idea why you're whining about some previous post I supposedly didn't post. I've posted every comment I've ever received from you.

It's crap like you're attempting to label all liberals as not wanting a debate based on your being under some WRONG idea that I didn't publish a comment of yours that makes you look dumb.

But in the future, you're entirely correct. I won't post crap like the above. Because I'm going to call you on your stupidity, set you straight, and respond to your
personal attacks.

And when I do, all the hang-wringers will condemn me for being "irresponsible" and tut-tut about the nasty level of discourse here.

So from now on, if you're going to jump ugly, your comments will not be published, even if they do contain rational opinion.

I don't even have a clue as to where the topic of what to do about Iran came up.

I'm certainly not going to lay out some detailed plan for "what to do about Iran" at 7 a.m. today. Sorry.

But again, the subject hasn't even been raised here. So .....

You tell me what comment of yours I've ever neglected to post and I'll post it.

Until then, save your bitching for when it's justified.

 
At 5/02/2006 8:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To impeach bush is the sillyest thing that I have ever heard. I am a stron Democrat, but to impeach Bush is unreasonable. nly people with blinders on would suggest this.

 
At 5/02/2006 9:11 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon... ya got me interested there and then kinda dropped the ball.

You say only people with blinders on would suggest this... but then you don't tell us how or why you think so.

It would be easier to suggest that only people with blinders on would reject this notion.

It's clear that it may be a fool's errand to suggest impeachment without Dem control of at least the House, but it would certainly serve to inform the people of the country that indeed, Bush HAS done things which would easily rise to impeachable offences were the legislature not solidly in Republican hands.

Recall that the Republicans spent years and hundreds of millions of your tax dollars trying to impeach a president for lying about sex.

I think secretly authorizing the extra-constitutional wiretapping of American citizens without a warrent would be a far more valid reason to impeach than that, not to mention the already large and growing body of evidence that Bush et. al. knowingly lied or "cherry-picked" intelligence they knew to be dubious if not false to lie the country into an unnecessary and many say illegal war of agression. A "preeemptive" war against a soverign country which was no demonstrated threat to our country.

Wars of aggression are absolutely antithetical to American values and history, and never before had we invaded a country without provocation or solid evidence that they were a threat to our interests. This was our first, and hopefully our last, "war of choice", and those who chose to lead us into it lied both to us as well as our representitives in D.C. to gain our support.

 
At 5/02/2006 10:55 AM, Anonymous havinfun said...

The Iran question came up because you want to impeach Bush based on the preemptive strike on Iraq. It is a valid question (and important question facing the US) - how would you handle Iran?

If you would like, I will try to recreate the post that you indicate that you did not receive.

 
At 5/02/2006 2:07 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You'd be welcome to send it to me via e-mail.

I have searched all the comments I've received and show only one comment sent by you prior to the one where you accused me of not publishing one, and that's the one above at 9:46 asking a question of Carl.

I seem to recall you sending in more than that, but that's all that comes up in a search of "havinfun"

If you sent it in using anonymous or a different name, I'd have no idea it was you, of course, and if it was a different spelling, it won't show up on a search.

If you can locate or recreate the comment and send it to me in e-mail, I'll gladly either post it (in the case it simply got by me and I didn't even see it the first time you sent it) or explain why I didn't post it.

As to expecting me to formulate the foreign policy response to Iran, I'm afraid that's above my pay grade. I'd leave that to those who know the area better. But that doesn't mean that I can't firmly believe that testing nuclear strength bombs in the desert (a bomb so heavy we have nothing capable of even delivering it) and ratcheting up the saber-rattling rhetoric isn't the way to go.

Clearly Iran feels threatened, as well they might, and is feeling boxed into a corner. They see the US invading soverign countries and beleive that they are simply on a crusade to build an empire, steal other's oil, etc.
I find it hard to blame them for wanting to retain a nuclear capability as a deterant against Bush and his thugs deciding that they want to take over Iran next.

You can quote the leaders of Iran all you want, but from what I understand, they're not too popular with the Iranian population who tends to be very young (a lot were slaughtered in the Iraq-Iran war where we supported Sadaam and supplied both sides with advanced weaponry, and in the case of Iraq, gave them the chemical agents that we later used as a reason to invade)

I think a political solution would be a better goal than simply talking about a military invasion. The American public wouldn't tolerate another adventure like that.

Iran simply wants to be secure, and again, I can't find it hard to understand why they're feeling threatened. After all, we ARE threatening them.

 
At 5/02/2006 4:59 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

I think what anon@8:10 is saying is this: President Dick Cheney.
For kicks, I clicked onto the handicapped icon, and the robot audio said: 919562. Is that like "Paul is dead"? Inquiring minds want to know, dammit!

 
At 5/02/2006 8:52 PM, Anonymous havinfun said...

1. I accept your explanation that you did not receive my previous post - based on that, I owe you an apology.

2. The post dealt with the impeachment comments which are the type of partisan crap that we need to get over in this country. We need to appreciate that we are all Americans first and foremost and to suggest impeachment for issues that every wartime President has ever done is foolishness (wiretaps, etc.). As far as lies, goodness, every single intelligence group in the world acknowledged the existence of WMD. The US attacked after 14 UN resolutions were ignored and Congress approved the use of force (Democrats as well).

There was no Congressional approval of the Bosnia attack (which happened to coincide with the Lewinsky investigation) yet Republicans did not throw a fit.

The mass graves that President Clinton pointed out in the aerial photo's never materialized, yet Republicans did not throw a fit.

Come on, we are all Americans and we have serious issues to deal with, that our politicians are not dealing with (BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE),

1. Healthcare
2. Medicare
3. Social Security
4. Immigration
5. Budget Deficit

If we, the public, cannot stay focused on forcing both sides of the isle to deal with these issues - and giving no one a free pass (even if they are from our party), we will continue to have unresolved issues.

As for Iran - this is THE issue that will frame the next 5-years. Their leadership is there to stay. Their leadership has full control over the political system - and the people. Their leadership specifically has stated/ threatened to wipe Israel off the map (and the West (us)) - and if we do not appreciate the severity and the reality of these threats and act accordingly, well...

The problem with the Iraq issue - and the grandstanding that has followed is, as you say, the American public will not stand for another...and if we allow Iran to proceed unchecked, well, please do not be so foolish as to think that their threats are hollow.

 
At 5/03/2006 9:15 AM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

When posting, especially with long posts that take some time, make sure that when you hit submit that the message is actually sent and not that a new verification word comes up. It seems to cycle every 15 minutes or so. THis could be a reason for posts not getting through. I've done it myself. I click submit and think all is well and close the comments window, and then wonder why my comment isn't posted.

Anyway, as to the handicaped symbol, I think there are programs that can "tab" from link to link when a particular key is pressed. But you raise a good point dope, and I could be way off base.

 
At 5/03/2006 2:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

High, that's a great suggestion, as I run into it often myself.

If you click to send your comment and the comment window reappears with your comment still in the box, that means that it wouldn't go through and you need to type in the new passphrase that appears.

Good catch!

And High, I think your explanation about the handicapped symbol is probably as likely as any.

You're on the A-list among commenters and I can't recall you once being "way off base".

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home