i don't think historical evidence suggested one way or the other that perjury was to be thought of as a high crime or misdemeanor. but...even if it did...what happened to the "living document" approach to constitutional interpretation??
[quotei don't think historical evidence suggested one way or the other that perjury was to be thought of as a high crime or misdemeanor. but...even if it did...what happened to the "living document" approach to constitutional interpretation??[/quote] Oh, I still feel that way. But that's more of a substantive argument. Besides, since my "opponents" favor more strict interpretation... I figured I'd attempt to undercut them w/their own standards. Fair game if they take the substantive route to do the same to me . I think I have a much stronger argument in that arena: and I'm afraid that future history is going to demonstrate the problems associated with viewing impeachment as relevant to wrongs other than those committed in the role of President. W/regards to the historical record... the evidence I have read suggests that impeachment was only relevant w/regards to job related activity. If you wish, we can go into it (later today since I don't have my laptop w/me). In the more recent record, certain tax irregularities were rejected as a basis for impeaching Nixon (it was Nixon, right ) because they were deemed as having nothing to do w/his job.
Oh, I still feel that way. But that's more of a substantive argument. Besides, since my "opponents" favor more strict interpretation... I figured I'd attempt to undercut them w/their own standards. Fair game if they take the substantive route to do the same to me . I think I have a much stronger argument in that arena: and I'm afraid that future history is going to demonstrate the problems associated with viewing impeachment as relevant to wrongs other than those committed in the role of President. W/regards to the historical record... the evidence I have read suggests that impeachment was only relevant w/regards to job related activity. If you wish, we can go into it (later today since I don't have my laptop w/me). In the more recent record, certain tax irregularities were rejected as a basis for impeaching Nixon (it was Nixon, right ) because they were deemed as having nothing to do w/his job. [/QUOTE] interesting...but i would think lying under oath...even in the midst of a private matter...would cut to his job. i haven't researched enough on history of how high crimes and misdemeanors was interpreted prior to this event, so i would certainly be interested in any information you could provide. just don't say "it's just about sex" and we'll be alright!
I say string the b*stard up. I'd have impeached Clinton, I'd impeach Bush, and whoever's next, I'll impeach him too. Why are we so afraid to fire presidents? We'll get another one just as good.
Lying under oath in a trial that shouldn't have been brought while he was president. It had nothing to do with his job performance or anything to do with the presidency. Cops lie on the stand all the time, especially in drug cases. It is so prevalent that they have developed a term for it: testi-lying. If everyone overlooks the cops doing it, it can't be serious enough to impeach a president. I'm not saying there shouldn't have been repercussions, just that the whole thing should have happened AFTER he left office.
Andy...by that criteria, if a President committed mass murder in broad daylight he should get a pass until his term is over.
Keep digging your hole Prez any more explanations like this and impeaching Bush should be a breeze. There is no way to pass the blame on such a glaring screw-up by George & Co. The Buck stops with the President end of story.
Wait?!?!? Let me try and understand. They released this document (8 pages out of 90) to prove that it’s not Bush’s fault that he “misinterpreted" the data? I’m confused…
