Patterico's Pontifications


Well, This Should be Interesting

Filed under: Constitutional Law — Angry Clam @ 11:31 am

[Posted by The Angry Clam]

I know that Patterico’s Hiltzik posts have been all the rage lately, and rightly so. However, I thought people would be interested in something slightly different. Someone in Illinois recently decided it would be fun to use the state legislature to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Apparently, California is in on the bandwagon.

My first thought is “way to go guys, in an election year with faltering GOP turnout numbers, you’ve managed to come up with something that will immediately send Republicans to the polls.”

My second thought was “Oh, Paul Koretz, the poster child for my delight in term limits.” He’s a Dennis Kucinich-like nutball Assemblyman from West Hollywood, and he seems to delight in introducing bills that are off the wall, even for California Democrats.

Great job, guys. From a straight-ticket Republican voter, I salute you.

– The Angry Clam

39 Responses to “Well, This Should be Interesting”

  1. Clam–

    You don’t have any trouble with walruses, to you?

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  2. >AJR 39 is a bill introduced in January by Koretz calling for a moratorium on depleted uranium

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  3. Democrats–extending the half-life of uranium THROUGH LEGISLATION.

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  4. This is a real pip. (WeHo, of course.) I guess Paul was at a disco when 9/11 happened.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  5. It’s annoyingly clever because it allows anyone who needs to clean up their voting record to get all pompous and surly. Hillary and other fundraisers can jump on the verbiage and look like they’re against the war. Just in time for you know what. Flip flop

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  6. Because some woman is dying in Texas?

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  7. Stop the mortality!

    Dan Collins (208fbe)

  8. He signed the Texas “a hospital committee can take you off life suport against your or your family’s wishes” law.

    nk (5a2f98)

  9. It doesn’t sound so bad to me.

    Basically, if a doctor says “this is worthless and a waste of resources” you have to go find another doctor, and cannot force the doctor to continue to provide treatment.

    Do you really want a doctor who thinks expending effort on you is worthless? I don’t.

    I won’t even go into the problems that signing a bill providing only prosecutorial immunity (traditionally, prosecutorial discretion is the sole province of the executive in the federal system; I am unfamiliar with Texas’ own system) would face in qualifying as a “high crime or misdemeanor,” or whether, even assuming it is, impeachment is appropriately applied to acts taken before entering office and unrelated to the official discharge of the office currently held.

    No more derails, please. Thanks.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  10. I won’t even go into the problems that signing a bill providing only prosecutorial immunity (traditionally, prosecutorial discretion is the sole province of the executive in the federal system; I am unfamiliar with Texas’ own system) would face in qualifying as a “high crime or misdemeanor,” or whether, even assuming it is, impeachment is appropriately applied to acts taken before entering office and unrelated to the official discharge of the office currently held.

    Nor should you. All NK said was that he wants to impeach Bush, not that he has grounds to do so. In that sense, he’s in the same boat as Koretz and the moonbats in Ill Annoy.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  11. Thanks, Xrlq. In the exact same sense. I don’t like him this minute for reasons totally unrelated to his Presidency. But this isn’t my blog and if the host wants me to keep tangential comments to myself, I will.

    nk (bfc26a)

  12. I’m more interested in the procedures involved with this, anyway. It seems odd to have an impeachment resolution introduced into the House by a state legislature given the ordinary manner in which bills work their way through the system, but after Nixon v. United States, it appears that there is wide latitude in impeachment proceedings.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  13. Clam, your comment #13:

    It does not seem to me that under Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, of the Constitution it can be more than just a petition to the House of Representatives even if all 50 states voted for it. “The House of Reresentatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” IMHO, constitutionally it counts only as much as a letter from any disgruntled citizen.

    nk (bfc26a)

  14. But, see, that’s the thing. The Supreme Court took an essentially hands-off approach toward impeachment in Nixon, allowing the Senate to “try” (the constitutional keyword) Judge Nixon via a committee, rather than the full Senate, saying that such definitions were up to the legislature, and not the courts.

    The House could likewise. Keep in mind that this only initiates the hearings, not passes the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

    This is what Section 603, the basis for these moves, says:

    There are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion:

    by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536);
    by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543);
    or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873);
    by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498);
    by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488);
    or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).

    It’s an interesting, and unusual, means of introducing the proceedings.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  15. Well, I’ve been to Right Wing Politics, and they have more info on this case. So, I hereby retract my previous callous comment and say that anyone reading this should try and help out any way they can. It seems to me that those most to blame for this are the board members of the hospital, and the insurance company. The woman is a 23 year old widower with kids and has expressly indicated that she does want extraordinary measures taken. She ought to be transported immediately to the NIH, and they ought to take any and all measures necessary to try and save her.

    Dan "Fuck Head" Collins (84266a)

  16. Sorry, Clam–some things are just, y’know, important.

    Dan Collins (84266a)

  17. That’s true, Dan.

    This law in Texas and that woman, however, are not two of them.

    The Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  18. Beg to differ, Mr. Clam. I have infinite rats’ asses not to give about the law, but the woman is important. Last time I checked, even lifelong dhimmicrats were people. I’m just a guest here, and you are the bee’s knees and all, but that’s just ugly. So, maybe we can agree on not two, but the one . . . it’s as important as things get.

    Dan Collins (8b6bc2)

  19. I’m sorry that I can’t get too worked up over a woman that an entire hospital of doctors has declared a lost medical cause and a waste of further medical resources.

    The Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  20. Sorry about the previous “Test” comment (where I mistyped my screen name). I’m trying to see if I’ve been “banned” or if there is a technical problem prohibiting me from commenting. Perhaps it was a fobidden “mailto” link? Let’s find out.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  21. Angry Clam – I don’t recall where you stood on Terri Schiavo, so this isn’t directed at you, but ISTM that anyone who was outraged at that and not outraged at this is hypocritical at best.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  22. >I’m sorry that I can’t get too worked up over a woman that an entire hospital of doctors has declared a lost medical cause and a waste of further medical resources.

    Dan Collins (8b6bc2)

  23. Patterico, I must apologize in advance because this comment is off topic of this post, although it relates to the leftist media, the prosecution of crime, and District Attorneys, things which I consider you to be knowlegeable.

    Will you please respond, if not in a separate post, then in this thread? I’m asking simply because I value your experience and insight on this matter.

    Specifically, it relates to ABC’s PRIMETIME Live news magazine show with Diane Sawyer and their failure to report what the Franklin County, NY DA feels was a crime against a child committed on camera.

    —– Sidebar —–

    If anyone agrees with me that their lack of action (making a simple phone call) was outrageous, perhaps you will match me or best me and express your feelings to ABC. This is the email that I sent to (the PRIMETIME contact point listed on ABC’s website):

    Subject: About Neglect in Not Reporting Child Abuse: Diane Sawyer & PRIMETIME
    Re: The episode appearing on Friday April 21, 2006, about the troubled family in Lake Placid, New York.

    Dear ABC and PRIMETIME,

    I have an idea… perhaps Diane Sawyer and the staff at PRIMETIME should report child abuse to the police or, in New York, as required by law, to the Office of Children & Family Services, if they see it, particularly when they have evidence of it, a videotape, and they are aware that this incident hasn’t been reported before.

    Notice that the New York Office of Children & Family Services website states:

    How and where do I report child abuse and/or maltreatment?

    Reports of suspected child abuse or maltreatment should be made immediately — at any time of the day and on any day of the week — by telephone to the New York Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (sometimes referred to as the State Central Register or SCR). The telephone numbers are:

    Child Abuse Hotline Number: 1-800-342-3720 or 1-518-474-8740
    Your actions in this case were disgraceful, but unfortunately not inexplicable: ratings.

    I am requesting that you reply to me, a long time viewer, in writing or by email, within 10-business days of the date of this email (April 25, 2006) to inform me of the actions you are taking to improve (not a boilerplate response with nonsense about how ABC/PRIMETIME cares about children, but with information about how you plan to improve) child protection policies and culture at your show and what consequences Ms. Sawyer will receive as a result of this unfortunate incident.

    Kind regards,

    Chris Dollis
    [phone number and address withheld]

    —– End Sidebar —–

    My question would be beyond public opprobrium, do you feel their should be any consequences, professionally, criminally, or civilly, to Diane Sawyer, the staff and crew of PRIMETIME, or to ABC?

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  24. Yeah, I’m sorry, too. Dude, pull out. Nuke all of my comments and yours since I brought up the subject. Please.

    Dan Collins (8b6bc2)

  25. The party of traitors are getting in deep. We now have at least four of Clintons stooges involved, plus 8 Generals. Add the fact the Hanoi John their favorite son is a known traitor. Turbin Durbin proved he’s a traitor on the Senate floor. Within 30 days there will be a hundred traitors identified and all will be tied to the Clinton’s attempt to set up a dictatorship. Do you really think they wanted someone as stupid as Algore in the White House, only because he’s stupid and they knew they could control him completely?
    Their attempt to hype a party of corruption has backfired big time. Now we have 10 dim-wits involved in corruption for every one Republican. I think the party will fall apart way before the fall elections.
    The fuel prices will fall on their head since they blocked the Energy bill submitted in “2001” by the president for 5 years and are still preventing development of any new energy sources. The american people seem to be really dense at times but I suspect that most are not really stupid enough to ‘forget’ all of the dim-wit obstruction that is now costing them big time dollars.

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  26. Scrapiron–

    Baaaaaaaaaaaaa, said the sheep.

    Clam–nuke it. Do it now, before the trolls get here.

    Dan Collins (8b6bc2)

  27. What the hell is going on in these comments?

    I get one tangent from my mention of impeachment, and suddenly it’s an open thread, where people can carry on about whatever’s on their mind?


    No nuking, though, might as well let stuff collect here.

    The Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  28. Clam, your comment #15: I wonder if the Supreme Court in the Nixon case was not looking at its own procedures — it appoints a Master to conduct the fact-finding part when it sits as a trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The analogy, on second thought, from the statute you cited is less that of a constituent’s petition and more of a misdemeanor complaint which, in my state, can be signed by any person. It still does not deprive the prosecutor of discretion whether or how to proceed or the court of the ability to dismiss it for lack of probable cause.

    nk (947b03)

  29. nk’s got a point. What he said. Also, we have to keep in mind that the impeachment BS is coming from California. They probably think it will go to the 9th Circuit.

    Christ–are we back on topic, yet?

    Dan Collins (8b6bc2)

  30. Don’t forget to pick up these stories and more: Diane Sawyer looks great but may have pulled a fast one (ratings coup), a woman in Texas needs life over death, the Dems are screwed at election time (likely), prosecutorial immunity underwatch and Nixon v. United States, how and why. It’s a blue light special and thanks for shopping…..

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  31. This thread gave me a headache. Is ADD catchty?

    Deacon Bleau (938eb2)

  32. I think it might

    Xrlq (061a15)

  33. Angry Clam, even republicans don’t like 32% Bush these days.

    Evidence keeps piling on that Bush started a war using trumped-up evidence. That should an impeachable offense by itself.

    Yeah, keep sticking up for him. He’s not just toast – he’s burnt toast.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  34. Excuse the English – I’m just a lowly commenter. I’m not a “Decider” or anything.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  35. I don’t see where I “stuck up” for the President.

    If you notice, I was referring to Congressional elections.

    That said, I don’t like Bush because he’s far too liberal.

    The Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  36. Agreed, Angry Clam. Bush is really burning bridges on domestic matters. And the border? Whooey

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  37. Mapping McCarthy, continued

    Even as National Democrats are making noises about instituting impeachment proceedings against President Bush (and perhaps even VP Cheney), and more former intel personnel spin their CYA stories for a (thus far) compliant and helpful media (on "60…

    protein wisdom (c0db44)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2179 secs.