Tom Knapp wrote: BH) Bush has proposed and signed federal laws that have no basis [...] (BH
TK) Is it a "high crime or misdemeanor" to suggest to Congress that they act outside those enumerated powers? (TK The crime is the signing. The proposing just makes the crime worse. TK) asking a Congress composed of substantially the same people to whom he proposed that legislation, and who subsequently passed that legislation and delivered it to his desk for signature, to impeach him over it. (TK They're guilty too. Any impeachment resolution against Presidential over-reach that doesn't include some of these congressionally-abetted crimes is partisan opportunism and see-how-much-I-hate-Bush posturing. That's made even clearer when Cheney is included in the resolution under some kind of guilt-by-association theory, since the VP doesn't have the authority to commit any of the impeachable offenses cited. TK) I just wish that the LP had passed something similar in 2006 (TK The impeachment resolution offered in Portland was partisan and poorly worded, and deserved to fail. A resolution like mine could pass in Denver, except it would probably be radicalized via amendment and then fail to achieve the 2/3 threshold for adoption. In fact, that's my prediction for what will happen in Denver on any impeachment or antiwar resolution(s). Don't be surprised if you see hawks in Denver trying to sabotage such resolutions through radicalizing amendments. I would prefer silence over self-marginalizing silliness, but I'd rather see the LP take a credible and reasonable stand I disagree with than to be mute on the important issues of the moment.
