Defending the Truth

Admitting that it's "the wrong move" is NOT the same as saying it's illegal, or is unconstitutional.

Agreed?

I agree with your statement but the supreme court has said it is unconstitutional. Really, in the end they make the laws and our opinions are nothing.

Then why hasn't the Supreme Court, or any other agency, acted against the President?

I think you know why. You just don't want to admit it.



...and by the way, The Supreme Court does not "make the laws".

So... the Democrats do NOT want to "divide the country"?

Yeah, and my crap doesn't stink!

They'd love NOTHING MORE than to divide the country and impeach Bush. But they CAN'T - and they KNOW it!

You're just dodging the issue, and trying to make excuses for why Bush hasn't been impeached. But you know as well as I do that they're all a bunch of BS!

I dodged nothing. Last I knew the Congess and the Senate were made up of both Rebublicans and Democrats. Read what I wrote not what you want to see between the lines.

You're just like a dog chasing its tail.

So do keep trying to come up with all these excuses as to why Bush hasn't been impeached. But we all know why he hasn't been... YOU just cannot admit it.

I have made no excuses. I gave my opinion and I think it make alot more sense that your Neo-conservative, off the deep end conspiracy theory that the Democrats are trying to divide the nation.

Lets just say this okay, President has admitted to making mistakes in his intrepretations of the law. Congress makes the laws and the President has the authority to enforce them. The President was called into question to how he was enforcing the laws. The President in enforcing the laws has the right to determine how to enforce them, an implied power of the Constitution. The question that arose was whether his intrepretation of the laws was correct. The Supreme Court reiviewed the facts and issued an opinion, that the method of enforcement used by the President was unconstitutional. That is how the system of checks and balances is suppose to function, and that is exactly what it did. To say the President is guilty of a crime because of his method of execution of the laws is ridiculous, that it calls for impeachment is just as idiotic.

By this measure of standard, every law that the Supreme Court overturns on the basis of constitutionality, means that all members of the legislative body that passed said law are guilty of crimes and thus impeachable.

Mens rea requires that a person knowingly commit an illegal act, the incorrect interpretation of a law by the executive does not meet such standard, nor would it apply to the legislator who creates the law.

dmk

I agree with you that if the President didn't realize his interptation was wrong that he may not be impeachable. This certainly would hold alot of water if the evidence wasn't present concerning the pre-war knowledge that Iraq had no WMD program, on going and that at the time Saddam was of little concequence in battling terror. If the President did lie to us concerning the Iraqi threat, and he was planning on going in there before 9/11(which also has been substantiated), than applying the Executive power, reserved for during war time only, and applying his method of execution of these laws, should never have even taken place. Therefore, his interpetation of said laws would be moot. This would make him impeachable.