Friday, March 31, 2006

Feingold's Desire for Censure

Today's Senate Judiciary committee meeting was a farce. Political beyond belief.

The most relevant point I can't seem to find a quote for. There is no Constitutional allowance for Censuring the president. You only can impeach. The Senate can put forward a resolution stating they disagree with the president's position, but censure has no basis in the way the US government was created.

There also is the point that you can't Censure or Impeach on a topic where there is legal disagreement on what the legality is. Censure or Impeachment are related to known and understood illegal actions. Seems that the present debate pretty clearly shows that neither side has any standing judicial precedence on the topic.

Then there is John Dean. Not even sure why he's considered relevant. Well, he wrote a book that supports Feingold's contentions. Then there is his contention:
"I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious," Dean, whose testimony three decades ago help lead to Nixon's resignation in 1974, said in support of the seldom-used measure to discredit a president.

Dean is also the author of a book titled "Worse than Watergate," which slams the Bush administration as obsessed with politics and secrecy.

Wonder where he got his information? Or is he just shooting into the air to push his book? I don't see that this was anything more than political posturing and Feingold is getting all the free publicity and a big in with the fever swamp left.



1 comment:

Granted said...

Sure this is political. That's why the Repugs are letting it happen. I can't believe the Demo's haven't thought this through (well, I can). It goes like this:
Dems: Bush listened to conversations of terrorists that were plotting to blow up people in the US and we're going to punish him for it
Electorate: What? He's doing what we want and you guys are going to punish him? Must remember to vote against these morons in November.