Impeachment Coming from Vermont, New Mexico and other States

You haven't so far or you'd know what treason is. All you've got is opinions of what you think it should be.

 

I asked you some questions...see those question marks in my post? Are you going to try and answer them honestly or what?

 

"Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

According to the Constitution, the answers to you questions, even if your assertions were true, are no, no, no, no, no...

 

"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

That explains much thanks. Now I have one more question...are the globalists that are currently in power in both parties that agree on abolishing our borders and merging us with Canada and Mexico friends or enemies to the U.S. and it's constitution?

 

They are considered friendly governments. I believe I know where you're headed and you won't get there from here. Any treaty "merging" us with them would have to be approved by the Senate. The President does not have the power to do so.

You just need to drop the treason charge. It won't fly.

 

If a president of the United States met with the leaders of two nations who collectively created a group to work on combining those three nations into a single union, without the authorization of congress, without the authorization of the people and without the Constitutional authority to do so and in the process creating a shared form of government with regulations that are primary over the Constitution of the United States, then an argument can be made that said president has engaged in violating any of the below statutes of the United States code in varying degrees.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384 - Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. ​

 

Nice post. Now drop the treason charge. It won't work. Your hate is affecting your reasoning powers.

 

Please elaborate on your charge.

 

Nothing to elaborate on. You haven't and can't prove that Bush has overtly provided aid and comfort to our enemies.

End of story.

Hate like yours warps the mind.

 

In these kinds of cases, all we need to do is look at who is arguing that this is treasonous. That, in and of itself, is enough reason to dismiss it out of hand.

 

Force = strength or energy exerted or brought to bear.

Force doesn't always have to mean armies with their guns blazing landing on our shores to overthrow our government. It can be as Samuel Adams told us...there are armies of "designing and deceitful men" (and women in our own government) doing their utmost to undue everything that has made this country great from it's founding principles to it's supreme law of the land the U.S. constitution.

If nothing else that is a conspiracy to defraud the United States. And don't go trying to tell me there is no conspiracy here...read what CFR and Trilaterals have been saying and then go count how many there are in office and the media. They all agree on the same things and all of them are un American and designed to bring this republic with it's constution to nothing more than a high tech police state control grid where only the unelected global elite have any say at all what goes on here. Yeah there will be a token government in Washington so all you guys that can't see what has been going on right under your noses can point to it and say look at that we elected our leaders...har har har you only get to elect leaders that are hand picked for you by the global elite. Only those that agree with their one world anti American policies will ever ever ever get a real chance at holding a national office.

 

You and I have quite different definitions of who our enemies are.

Which of the following is untrue:

1. The leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States met in Waco, Texas in March of 2005.
   
2. The content of their meeting was "Building a North American Community" as drafted and recommended by the Council of Foreign Relations.
   
3. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was created as a result of this meeting without U.S. Congressional approval and without constitutional authority.
   
4. The intention of the SPP is to increase security and trade amongst these three nations, with the stated objective of enforcing the borders of the South of Mexico and the shorelines of all three nations with no emphasis on enforcing the borders between Mexico and the US and Canada and the US.
   
5. A country with no borders is not a country.
   
6. As a result of this arrangement the sovereignty of the United States will be abrogated to the North American Union.
   
7. This is the only viable explanation for why a nation that is allegedly in a war against terror, would allow individuals from foreign nations to come into America unimpeded.

 

Don't have an argument...use the ad hominem card :applause:

 

I think maybe carpro is just trying to be a good North American. Perhaps the United States is an idea who's time is past, and we should follow his example and just shuffle off into the global gulag willingly.

 

I appreciate Speaker Pelosi but.....

bush/cheney could very well get impeached and it will not happen by people pushing it and pushing it ..it is already happening and it is happening because of the deep cronyism of the bush culture...pallets of billions is a starter the American taxpayer imho will unite and will want an accounting. Now you do not hear constant harping for impeachment from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid in the senate...but like I have said about 10 times now...bush is soooooo bad that this impeachment will be a natural inertia that will grow and grow and it is the consequences of his ideology and cronyism which showed an arrogance to the constitution.

I think the wasting of multi-billions in Iraq...let me repeat that ..the wasting of multi-billions in Iraq will bring the bush culture down even lower and it will be worse than 10 tea pot domes...it very well may mean his impeachment. imho

 

I'd guess this administration, VP and President have authorized enough warrantless searches, illegal, unconstitutional wiretaps and aassorted other things, in their zeal to get to war in Iraq no matter what, that they have committed plenty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to qualify for impeachment. Bush lied to Congress to get their support for the war. If the flimsy nature of the charges against Clinton motivated enough Republicans to waste the country's time and effort on that farce, then I think there will be plenty to charge Cheney and Bush, and at least get the articles voted onto their record, which was what the aim seemed to be of the Republicans who pushed the issue against Clinton.

I'm not sure that would necessarily be a wise course, but I think there are some Republicans out there who are thinking that two more years of a Bush-Cheney administration will make a Democratic White House in 2008, and probably 2012, an absolute certainty. I don't think the Democrats, who can sense that they are going to get the White House back, probably in a mandate-sized landslide, will do anything to risk that.

 

There are some things so silly that they just don't deserve the time to argue against them. And it seems we always see the same people espousing these things on here. And that is enough to call any serious thinker to question the propriety of the idea espoused. That's not ad hominem. It is a simple statement of fact that certain people are way too easily beguiled into believing just about anything.

Bush may be a lot of things ... inept, narcissistic, nepotistic, crony-istic, wild-spender-istic, or much else ... but no serious thinker would suggeset that Bush is treasonous. That is so far from any sense of reality that it must only be taken with bombastic laughter.

 

Well let's see. How do I respond to that with an equivalent intellectual level and maturity. Thinking, thinking...I've got it...Right backatcha but more of it. :thumbs:

 

What does that mean? "Equivalent intellectual level and maturity"? To do that, you would need to immediately abandon these silly theories that Bush is a traitor. There are a great number of things that Bush has done wrong. Treason is simply not one of them, and such a thought is entertained seriously only by those with no intellectual heft. No serious thinker would entertain such a notion. Period.