Kucinich Forces Impeachment Vote

[g_bambino]

So what, in your view, is Queen Elizabeth?

A human female, 82 years of age, of Scottish, English, Danish, German, Flemish, etc., extraction.

[GostHacked]

A human female, 82 years of age, of Scottish, English, Danish, German, Flemish, etc., extraction.

It is hilarious that you think England does not have a queen but Canada does. That same female is also the symbolic figure head of Canada. Which is again the Queen of England. It is a nod to part of our European roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_england

The present monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since 6 February 1952.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_canada

The present monarch is Elizabeth II – officially styled Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada) – who has reigned since February 6, 1952.

I was wrong to say the Queen of England has no power. She does, but it seems limited, and there are checks and balances in place. Not sure if the Queen can veto anything passed in Parliment. The Queen can influence policy, but Parliment has to approve of the item.

The POTUS is the Commander in Cheif. He has plently of power, and the ability to use it. Also POTUS has the veto power, which can override items. But the congress/senate have the ability to override the veto with a 2/3rds vote in favour of overriding.

So there are checks and balances in place for both. But the Queen, from what I can gather, has no veto power. So in conclusion the Queen does not hold as much power as the POTUS.

[g_bambino]

It is hilarious that you think England does not have a queen but Canada does. That same female is also the symbolic figure head of Canada. Which is again the Queen of England. It is a nod to part of our European roots.

England is the realm of a queen, but it does not "have" a queen, and, as I actually said, there is no Queen of England. England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom; as such, it falls within the sovereignty of the Queen of the UK, who is titled as such. (I'm sure you'll note that your Wikipedia link for "Queen of England" actually redirects to the article "Monarchy of the United Kingdom.") This is similar - though not the same - as the situation in Canada, where Alberta is a province under the authority of the Queen of Canada, but there is no Queen of Alberta.

I was wrong to say the Queen of England has no power. She does, but it seems limited, and there are checks and balances in place. Not sure if the Queen can veto anything passed in Parliment. The Queen can influence policy, but Parliment has to approve of the item.

The POTUS is the Commander in Cheif. He has plently of power, and the ability to use it. Also POTUS has the veto power, which can override items. But the congress/senate have the ability to override the veto with a 2/3rds vote in favour of overriding.

So there are checks and balances in place for both. But the Queen, from what I can gather, has no veto power. So in conclusion the Queen does not hold as much power as the POTUS.

To the contrary, I would say the Queen holds more power than the US president. Not only is she the chief executive and commander-in-chief of her countries, but all courts and law enforcement agencies also operate under her authority. Thus, as Queen of Canada, she is much more than just a symbolic "nod to part of our European roots," she is the embodiment of the Canadian state. The real difference between she and the president of the US is not in how much power they each hold; rather, it is in how much they actually personally exercise. Part of the system of checks and balances in Canada are the conventions that "bind" the monarch - and her viceroys - to remain apolitical and follow the advice of her ministers - who are responsible to the elected House of Commons - on the use of her executive power, aka the Royal Prerogative; this makes it appear as though the monarch holds no power, but the contrary is actually true, and she not only retains all power, but also the ability to use it in a constitutional crisis situation. This is similar to how other constitutional monarchies and a number of republics around the world operate. The US president, on the other hand, and as you point out, is not bound in the same way, and may actively use executive authority in the political arena, after consulting with his cabinet that is not accountable to the electorate. Thus, it appears as though he holds more power than the Queen, when he does not.

As the Queen doesn't involve herself in the politics of the nation, it is unlikely that she should ever need to be called before a commission or face impeachment. However, as the US president is politically active, it appears strange to me that he similarly need not address any boards of inquiry or congressional committees if asked to do so; and, while he can be impeached, as I said earlier, the act is done so infrequently as to be almost ineffective.

Edited June 16, 2008 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

Fine ... Queen of the United Kingdom .. I wonder where you got France and Germany in there the first time.

(edit cause my grammar sucks sometimes)

You would say she has more power, but without some research, and without you providing links, I will, by the information I have read (and yes more will be done) say that the POTUS has more power.

It could be as simple as this.

Who in the United States authorized the invasion of Iraq.

The President of the United States - and he did so without the approval of congress or the senate (i could be wrong here)

Who in the United Kingdom authorized the invasion of Iraq.

The Queen sure did, but only on the approval of Parliment, without the approval, she can't do a thing.

(edited/deleted cause this one line was wrong)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3718.asp

As a constitutional monarch, The Queen does not 'rule' the country, but fulfils important ceremonial and formal roles with respect to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4696.asp

In the earliest times the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of legal systems in different areas of the UK. As such the Sovereign became known as the 'Fount of Justice'.

While no longer administering justice in a practical way, the Sovereign today still retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out, and law and order is maintained.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4698.asp

The Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces and only he or she can declare war and peace.

This dates from the times when the monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy, and often leading them into battle.

But nowadays these powers cannot be exercised on the monarch's own initiative, but only on the advice of responsible Ministers. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that "the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law".

Edited June 16, 2008 by GostHacked

[g_bambino]

Fine ... Queen of the United Kingdom .. I wonder where you got France and Germany in there the first time.

I said French and German extraction; that means she's of French and German ancestry, amongst others.

You would say she has more power, but without some research, and without you providing links, I will, by the information I have read (and yes more will be done) say that the POTUS has more power.

It could be as simple as this.

Who in the United States authorized the invasion of Iraq.

The President of the United States - and he did so without the approval of congress or the senate (i could be wrong here)

Who in the United Kingdom authorized the invasion of Iraq.

The Queen sure did, but only on the approval of Parliment, without the approval, she can't do a thing.

You are right that Elizabeth must have "advice" before using her executive powers; though, the Commons vote on Iraq was superfluous, as declarations of war fall within the Royal Prerogaitive, and the Royal Prerogative is not subject to parliamentary approval; it is the ministers in the various cabinets who advise the Queen on these matters. Regardless, because she does not normally exercise executive authority without the direction of her ministers does not mean that the powers are not still hers. That said, as she holds all executive authority in her countries, and George Bush holds all executive authority in his country, they have the same amount of power within their respective jurisdictions, thus far. However, the Queen also has the power to enforce her laws through her courts and her police officers; something that, I believe, the President of the US cannot do (even if only in his name, as it is with the Queen, in practice). In other words: the US president is a part of two of the three components of the American government, while the Canadian monarch is part of all three branches of the Canadian government; not to mention that the sovereign fills the same role in each of the ten provinces.

I know the President of the US visibly wields his powers more freely, while the Queen of Canada must normally abide by her ministers' instruction, which makes it appear that the president has more power. But, I think that is just a matter of optics stemming from the differences in the two countries' constitutional systems.

Edited June 16, 2008 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

It could be as simple as this.

Who in the United States authorized the invasion of Iraq.

The President of the United States - and he did so without the approval of congress or the senate (i could be wrong here)

Patently false....anyone watching Hillary's nomination run should know this, as it was the US Congress' 10/2002 vote (resolution) to authorize war that was an albatross about her neck.

The US Senate is part of Congress.

[Topaz]

Patently false....anyone watching Hillary's nomination run should know this, as it was the US Congress' 10/2002 vote (resolution) to authorize war that was an albatross about her neck.

The US Senate is part of Congress.

Let's not forget, BC, all that had voted to give Bush an OK, said over and over again that the info. that they had wasn't the WHOLE info. and that they COULDN'T talk to anyone, even among themselves, what the info they had. IF they had the WHOLE info, they wouldn't have given him the ok.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's not forget, BC, all that had voted to give Bush an OK, said over and over again that the info. that they had wasn't the WHOLE info. and that they COULDN'T talk to anyone, even among themselves, what the info they had. IF they had the WHOLE info, they wouldn't have given him the ok.

I respectfully disagree!

The Iraq War resolution was based on many things going back to 1991...there were many "where as" clauses. Iraq was attacked by Clinton/Blair long before Bush took office based on identical transgressions by Saddam Hussein.

WRT specific WMD intelligence in 2002, the administration's "exaggerated" threats should have been vetted by standing Congressional intelligence committees. Everyone was happy to let George Tenet be the fall guy...except for Tenet himself.

[GostHacked]

I respectfully disagree!

The Iraq War resolution was based on many things going back to 1991...there were many "where as" clauses. Iraq was attacked by Clinton/Blair long before Bush took office based on identical transgressions by Saddam Hussein.

WRT specific WMD intelligence in 2002, the administration's "exaggerated" threats should have been vetted by standing Congressional intelligence committees. Everyone was happy to let George Tenet be the fall guy...except for Tenet himself.

Again it is how the Bush packaged it and sold it to the american people to garner support. Can't be telling them the real truth right? They would never support it.

[peter_puck]

Let's not forget, BC, all that had voted to give Bush an OK, said over and over again that the info. that they had wasn't the WHOLE info. and that they COULDN'T talk to anyone, even among themselves, what the info they had. IF they had the WHOLE info, they wouldn't have given him the ok.

I disagree. They thought Saddam had WMD's, Bush thought Saddam had WMD's. (I will even admit I was sure he had some) Solid evidence was clearly not there, but they were okay with that.

Bush, the weasel that he is, told the American people that Iraq was linked to Al Queda. He framed the war against Iraq as the war against terror (which he framed almost all of his mistakes as, come to think about it).

The Democrats then had a problem. They knew (as Bush did) that Saddam and Al Queda were enemies and that Iraq was no serious threat to the US . The problem was that a no vote on the war would make them look weak on terror in the political enviroment of the time. Instead of trying to explain to Americans what exactly Al Queda was and why they did what they did, they took the easy way out.

Bush is guilty, but so are the pro-war Democrats. Not meaning to start a flame war, but the American voting public that "doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran" (from a 9/11 country song) are to blame as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again it is how the Bush packaged it and sold it to the american people to garner support. Can't be telling them the real truth right? They would never support it.

This is mistaken....and often repeated mis-understanding of the collective American psyche before and after 9/11:

1) Americans were already sold on a beat down for Saddam going back to 1991; in fact, GW I almost didn't happen as the sales job was a lot harder.

2) It took very little to add Saddam to the shyte list after 9/11...a very easy sales job. Angry vengeance bombs were going to dropped on somebody...may as well add Saddam.

3) America remains engaged with blood and money after 5 years and a presidential election.

Americans would support it, have supported it, and will continue to support it.

[GostHacked]

This is mistaken....and often repeated mis-understanding of the collective American psyche before and after 9/11:

1) Americans were already sold on a beat down for Saddam going back to 1991; in fact, GW I almost didn't happen as the sales job was a lot harder.

No, actually it was easier because Iraq had actually invaded another country called Kuwait, and did at that time posess chemical/bio and working on nukes.

2) It took very little to add Saddam to the shyte list after 9/11...a very easy sales job. Angry vengeance bombs were going to dropped on somebody...may as well add Saddam.

GW II can't even really add anything. Besides he reads with the book upside down. WMDs whuuuuuuut???/

3) America remains engaged with blood and money after 5 years and a presidential election.

Americans would support it, have supported it, and will continue to support it.

Because the majority still beleives that the lies were the truth, and will swear to that god up there that those lies are the truth. Deceiving an ignorant populous and taking advantage of the ignorance to further their own means. I call those people a$$holes.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, actually it was easier because Iraq had actually invaded another country called Kuwait, and did at that time posess chemical/bio and working on nukes.

No...your comment run counters to the facts of Bush Senior's difficult time garnering domestic support to save rich spoiled Kuwaitis. Check the vote count in Congress....no contest.

GW II can't even really add anything. Besides he reads with the book upside down. WMDs whuuuuuuut???/

Yet it worked like a charm....hard to argue with success.

Because the majority still beleives that the lies were the truth, and will swear to that god up there that those lies are the truth. Deceiving an ignorant populous and taking advantage of the ignorance to further their own means. I call those people a$$holes.

Back to pouting again? Don't worry.....how you "feel" about it is just as irrelevant as what you can do about it.

Edited June 17, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

However quixotic and crazy Kucinich's impeachment motion is, however whacko Kucinisch himself is, the US is a wonderful country. An ordinary congressman can stand up to a Head of State.

Crazy? Hardly. Kucinich knows this will almost certainly amount to nothing, but he did it for the principles of it. Pelosi, & the other Democrats are too afraid of ruining their chances in 2008 to do the right thing & put these f'ers being bars.

The U.S. is a wonderful country. Its build upon a remarkable Consititution. But the Bush admin has crapped everything up the last 7 years, in many cases illegally, and the Democrats have failed to hold them to account for fear of political folly, and the American people themselves have failed to pressure their elected representives into holding the Bush admin legally responsible as well. Unfortunately, one of the freedoms Americans are guaranteed is the freedom of ignorance.

The system is there, but apathy, ignorance, and power-lust has come to bite them in the arse. I am disappointed in America the last 7 years, they are better than this. Kucinich isn't "whacko", he has some eccentric quirks (carrying all those things in his pocket), but he is intelligent & principled. No matter what people say on these forums, history will write him well, not so for Bush & co. Hopefully Bush & Co. will be held to account after they leave office. Something must also be done so that what they did can never happen again.

[Moonlight Graham]

There's alot of Bush Derangement Syndrome on evidence in this thread. (Note to Sufferers: He's president. Under the US Constitution, he was chosen twice. Get over it. As they say, move on.)

As long as what he does or did affects me, my country, and the human rights of others in other countries, i have absolutely no reason to "get over it" or "move on".

[bush_cheney2004]

Crazy? Hardly. Kucinich knows this will almost certainly amount to nothing, but he did it for the principles of it. Pelosi, & the other Democrats are too afraid of ruining their chances in 2008 to do the right thing & put these f'ers being bars.

Judge, jury, and sentencing in a single paragraph...how lovely! It's nice to know that "principles" are only important when criticizing the Bush administration.

The U.S. is a wonderful country. Its build upon a remarkable Consititution. But the Bush admin has crapped everything up the last 7 years, in many cases illegally, and the Democrats have failed to hold them to account for fear of political folly, and the American people themselves have failed to pressure their elected representives into holding the Bush admin legally responsible as well. Unfortunately, one of the freedoms Americans are guaranteed is the freedom of ignorance.

Nonsense...the American "people" have pressured elected representatives as they always have...by voting. Perhaps you would prefer an armed rebellion? Strike two.....

The system is there, but apathy, ignorance, and power-lust has come to bite them in the arse. I am disappointed in America the last 7 years, they are better than this. Kucinich isn't "whacko", he has some eccentric quirks (carrying all those things in his pocket), but he is intelligent & principled. No matter what people say on these forums, history will write him well, not so for Bush & co. Hopefully Bush & Co. will be held to account after they leave office. Something must also be done so that what they did can never happen again.

Perhaps you do not have a firm grasp of American history. Bush & Co. are neither original or remarkable in executing American foreign and domestic policy as they have. Strike three....

[GostHacked]

BC

Judge, jury, and sentencing in a single paragraph...how lovely! It's nice to know that "principles" are only important when criticizing the Bush administration.

Principles are important when fighting a war on terror based on the ideology of freedom.

[Guest American Woman]

As long as what he does or did affects me, my country, and the human rights of others in other countries, i have absolutely no reason to "get over it" or "move on".

Whenever anyone starts pouting about BDS and telling people to get over it and move on, it's obvious they can't refute what's being said. Unfortunately they don't take Will Rogers' advice to "never miss a good chance to shut up," so they resort to the same whiney waaaaaaaaaay over-used BDS comment/non-response.

Of course you have no reason to "get over it" or "move on," but it would sure make the lives of the few Bush supporters who are left easier if you did.

Edited June 18, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Principles are important when fighting a war on terror based on the ideology of freedom.

Really? Are the terrorists not free (until we catch or kill them)?

[bush_cheney2004]

Whenever anyone starts pouting about BDS and telling people to get over it and move on, it's obvious they can't refute what's being said. Unfortunately they don't take Will Rogers' advice to "never miss a good chance to shut up," so they resort to the same whiney waaaaaaaaaay over-used BDS comment/non-response.

This matter will soon resolve itself by January 2009, and then they will need a new pillow for their crying game. The GBU's don't know who is president.

[GostHacked]

Really? Are the terrorists not free (until we catch or kill them)?

Even if I could respond you would say that you (and the rest of the US) does not care. So this can be seen as trolling, because this is being totaly facetious. Which tells me your ideology of freedom is seriously flawed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if I could respond you would say that you (and the rest of the US) does not care. So this can be seen as trolling, because this is being totaly facetious. Which tells me your ideology of freedom is seriously flawed.

That's fine with me....anybody who expects moi or any other American and the USA to live up to a freedom fantasy that has never existed deserves what they get....a strong dose of reality. I look forward to President Bush completing his second term so we can get on with another chapter that is bound to piss somebody off.

The funny part is that such misguided souls would actually expect an impeachment from the same Congress that authorized and funds war and 'Gitmo. Suckers!

Sigh....a superpower's work is never done.

Edited June 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[peter_puck]

Sigh....a superpower's work is never done.

Few more terms of Bush policies, you might not have to carry the superpower burden anymore.

[gc1765]

Few more terms of Bush policies, you might not have to carry the superpower burden anymore.

[bush_cheney2004]

Few more terms of Bush policies, you might not have to carry the superpower burden anymore.

Not bloody likely....same policies as before with extra mustard. Wanna buy some more Globemaster III's ???