Bush is settling aside Congressional legislation he does not like. Isn't this impeachable?
399822
Bush has committed several impeachable acts. The most undisputed is he lied to Congress.\n\nAs for ignoring legislation he did the same thing as governor of Texas.  Any legislation he didn’t agree with, he just allowed the bill to expire on his desk.  The Texas Hate Crimes legislation is one of those laws he allowed to expire on his desk.  When the press asked him about his actions, he told them he didn’t have to explain his actions.\n\nI wish people would have studied his failures as a governor before they voted for him as president.  I live in Dallas and I know the type of Texas Bush left behind.  We have the highest violent crime rate in the country 8 years in a row, our public hospital is so overburdened people have to wait hours to be triaged at the emergency room and have to stand in line behind up to 100 people to get their prescriptions filled.  Our school districts are under funded and the federal courts have ordered the House of Representatives to act on our failing educational system.  Dallas has such an overwhelming homeless problem, during the World Cup, the city suggested putting them in jail until the games were over.\n\nThis is the kind of America Bush would like to create for the rest of the country.\n\nAnd you're right about the GOP losing both houses. If the special election losses of Republicans to Democrats are any indication of how the November elections are going to go down, happy days will be here again!
714344
In violation of his oath of office, Bush used signing statements to negate laws passed by Congress, not with a veto, but with his personal opinion. Bush, thus, elevated himself above the rule of law that has protected America from becoming a tyranny and made a mockery of the separation of powers that are a foundation of American liberty.\n\nThe notion that Americans can be protected from "terror" by giving up the Bill of Rights(and we have) is absurd. Democrats are complicit in this absurd notion. Too many have been intimidated into voting for police state legislation, because they lacked the GUTS to call police state legislation by its own name. The fact is, some legislation passed during the Bush administration is far more dangerous to Americans than Muslim terrorists. \n\nWith the overnight destruction of civil liberties that were 800 years in their creation, the United States stands at a watershed. If the legislation that has been put on the books permitting spying on Americans without a court warrant, legalizing torture and self-incrimination, and repealing habeas corpus and the right to an attorney remains on the books, the United States will be controlled by regime regardless of which party is in power.
762429
No because l really think Bush will actually do a better job with the Democrats in control of Congress. While he had no checks and balances there was no reason for him to actually do any real legislating. Now he has no choice but to work with congress without having a blank check that is stamped by congress. He can either work with congress or be a lame duck.
406857
President Bush has not been impeached because his party controls the branch of government that does the impeaching. That is the answer, and it is exactly that simple.\n\nIntelligent people on both sides of the aisle can debate whether or not the president should be impeached, but the people whose opinions matter are in congress. \n\nA president would have to act in a significantly egregious manner before his own political party would participate in his impeachment. Even then, an impeachment is unlikely.\n\nThe Bill Clinton impeachment is an accurate and recent example of the process. A Democratic party controlled House of Representatives would never have impeached him, but a Republican House did. The Democrats did have enough members in the Senate to block Clinton's removal, so that is what happened.\n\nWho was correct? The answer is not particularly relevant to this question. The fact that both sides tend to stick to the party line is the main relevant factor.\n\nIf the Democrats gained control of the House in the 2006 elections, an impeachment attempt would be highly likely.
277125
The current Congress will not impeach Bush, however, with the midterm elections this fall, we may have a whole new power structure in Washington come 2007.  The Republicans will probably lose their majority in the House and Senate this year and then the Democrats will have the ability to start the long impeachment process.\n\nIt’s very probable that the President did break the law in respect to this recent wiretapping fiasco, maybe so egregiously that he will be removed from office, but this raises another problem.\n\nDick Cheney.\n\nDoes anyone out there think the Democrats want to put Dick Cheney into the White House where he could run as an incumbent in 2008 if he decides he does enjoy being President after all?  On a number of occasions, the V.P. has said that he doesn’t want to be the Commander in Chief, but do the Democrats really want to risk that?\n\n\nOn top of that, the country is developing a dangerous trend of impeaching or recalling our elected officials when we do not like them.  One must look at Italy, California and much of South and Central America to realize that this is not a path that the Federal government should walk.\n\nNo one has a crystal ball here, but the end result of an impeachment is probably going to be worse than sticking out a few more years with our current President.
627971
Not with this Congress.
358516
First, to answer your question, yes!!!!!!!\n\nNow for the poster that said Clinton was impeached.  He was not.  It was never even put on the Senate floor, it was only a show of force in the Congress.\n\nAs for Bush, he can lie, steal, cheat and do whatever he wants.  The republicans are too scared of him to even censure him.  But just wait until the next Democrat takes office.  They will be investigated if they use toilet tissue instead of a Kleenex to blow their nose.  Lets see, what kind of charge could that be?  Improper usage of government property?  God help this country!!
601281
This is actually not a separation of powers issue, the Speaker is mistaken. He is creating a protection that does not exist.\n\nCongress is allowed to create its own rules in governing itself, but that is only for how it takes care of business not for whether an office is off limits to law enforcement for an allegation unrelated to specific legislation offered by that member.\n\nThe Constitution also protects members of Congress from legal liability for things they say while in their capacity as a legislator, but again this is only so a member cannot be intimidated into not speaking his mind or acting on his conscience or on the will of his constituents.
68427
I would like you to post references to the evidence you have that would warrant impeachment. I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm also not a Bush basher. I will judge him on the fact, not speculations. Some people say he lied, others say he had incorrect information. Some people say his domestic spying program is illegal, others say it was all done within the law. I'm waiting for the facts to come out before I make up my mind.
64371
Simply put, enough people (myself included) don't feel that he has broken the law. If enough members of congress feel that the president has committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" they can begin impeachment proceedings.\n\nA lot of people talk about this, but my opinion is that even among the president's most ardent opponents in the congress, I don't think there are many that wish to see an impeachment proceeding based upon the actions the president has taken with regards to anti-terrorism measures and/or the war in Iraq.
537020
Unconstitutional is all. Of course disregarding the constitution has never been a problem for Bush. He has broken both domestic and international law and I hope that someday he has to answer for it.
723435
It's ridiculous.  What ever happened to the Consitution?  Hopefully the Democrats can win back the House so that some impeachment hearings can begin against this whole corrupt administration.  Not only has this adminstration messed with the lower and middle class Americans, Bush and his cronies has destroyed the reputation that this nation has abroad; any goodwill created by the previous administrations has pretty much been wiped out by this administration.
1043472
I'm glad that the Supreme Court has finally woke up.  They couldn't remain blind much longer.  If Clinton was impeached for sexual indiscretions, then Congress should feel that Bush's behavior has exceeded anything that Clinton was accused of.  He needs to be removed so he cannot keep plunging our world into chaos.
384424
I think George Bush is just buying time to allow the issue to cool off. He really doesn't want to remove the illegals because of votes. You just watch what this snake pulls on America about all of this.
1005960
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 – In these highly-charged political times, it is the word that dare not speak its name:  impeachment. Democrats and other opponents of the President, as well as people in the media, are afraid to raise the topic for fear of being called too partisan or extreme.\n\nBut the startling revelation of the President’s warrantless wiretapping campaign may be the straw that broke the camel's back: In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more openly. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: there has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon.\n\nIn ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH, Michael Ratner, Bill Goodman and other experts at one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, set out the legal arguments for impeachment in a clear, concise, and objective discussion. In four separate articles of impeachment detailing four separate charges –warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers – it is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.\n\nARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH details that evidence, the relevant laws and the legal precedents. It also explains what the Constitution says about impeachment – an informative discussion further illuminated by supplemental material that includes a history of impeachment, explanation of its procedures, and the previous articles of impeachment brought against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.\n\nWith leading Republicans calling for investigations of the domestic spying campaign, a special prosecutor investigating the suppression of evidence used to launch the Iraq war, and hearings on innumerable instances of torture, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH may be more timely than any of us would like to admit.
664231
I think George Bush and this administration will be in the Civics Books right next to Richard Nixon. The politics are very similar with Watergate, and the Patriot act. Both are spying on Americans. Hopefully when Congress changes Bush will be impeached and tried for treason to the American people. It would be a great day for America, and Democracy. Standing up for the Bill of Rights of the people is what patriotism is all about.
439376
First, a member of the House of Representatives has to introduce a bill to form an impeachment panel.   This has already been done; the bill has been presented by Democratic Congressman John Conyers and has 29 co-sponsors. \n\nIf there’s enough support to form the panel, the panel conducts an investigation to see if there is grounds for impeachment.\n\nThose grounds for impeachment are, "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."\n\nClarification continues, ". . . those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." \n\nThis would include going to war for political gain and the disenfranchisement of voters, both of which I believe President Bush has done and can be proven.\n\nContinuing, "[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; . . ."\n\nHis connection with Ken Lay and Tom DeLay could be considered suspicious and I believe by defending them as he has done, Bush would be inclined to protect them.\n\nHere’s the main foundation for advancing with impeachment procedures against President Bush, "...must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, -- in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."\n\nThere in no doubt, by his own admission, President Bush gave false information to the Senate about Iraq.\n\nHere’s a complete list of grounds for impeachment which President Bush can most likely be proven to have committed:\n\nBush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq. \nBush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens. \nBush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes. \nBush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. \nBush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation. \nBush used government funds for domestic political propaganda.\nThe Bush team used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes.\nBush was negligent in his slow response to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. \nBush shows contempt towards our Constitution and our democratic ideals. \n\nThen after the panel concludes their investigation, the results will be presented to the House of Representative for a vote.