Congratuations, Nancy Pelosi
Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ]
04 Jan 2007, 9:18 pm
It would have been the second time that a woman had come close to being president. If Walter Mondale had won the 1984 presidential election, and he died in office, Geraldine Ferarro would have been president.
Besides Pelosi, we have at least two other females in the line of succession: Condoleezza Rice (secretary of state) and Margaret Spellings (secretary of education). There might be others.
During the Clinton Administration, Madeline Albright was secretary of state. However, she would have been ineligible to be president due to the fact that she was born outside of the U.S.
Tim
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
05 Jan 2007, 12:15 am
headphase wrote:
Janet Reno was #7 in line
President pro tempore seems like a joke now we have had 2 Sentors in the #3 position in the past 5 years who have had pastimes as racists
President pro tempore seems like a joke now we have had 2 Sentors in the #3 position in the past 5 years who have had pastimes as racists
I completely forgot about Janet Reno. Then again, she did look like a guy.
Tim
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
05 Jan 2007, 12:53 pm
For reference: Presidential line of succession
1. Vice President (Richard B. Cheney)
2. Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi)
3. President pro tempore of the Senate (Robert Byrd)
4. Secretary of State (Condoleeza Rice)
5. Secretary of the Treasury (Henry M. Paulson)
6. Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates)
7. Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales)
8. Secretary of the Interior (Dick Kempthorne)
9. Secretary of Agriculture (Mike Johanns)
10. Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierezz, INELIGIBLE)
11. Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, INELIGIBLE)
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Mike Leavitt)
13. Secretary of Housing and Human Development (Alphonso Jackson)
14. Secretary of Transportation (Mary Peters)
15. Secretary of Energy (Samuel W. Bodman)
16. Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings)
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Jim Nicholson)
Note: The 25th Ammendment provides that if the Vice President's office is vacant, the President "shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
Note 2: I like lists.
05 Jan 2007, 2:32 pm
jimservo wrote:
Note: The 25th Amendment provides that if the Vice President's office is vacant, the President "shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
That's how Gerald Ford got in, after Spiro Agnew resigned when being investigated for tax evasion. He never won a national election.
Thanks for the list.
I think Pelosi's sexy.
(Hey, if Helen Mirren is, why not?)
Now that I know the rule of succession I can understand her reluctance to impeach Bush and/or Cheney. Get rid of Bush and real president Cheney's president in name as well. Get rid of them both and she looks like she's after Bush's job.
05 Jan 2007, 4:40 pm
The amendment passed congress in 1965, and was ratified in 1967. It was passed due largely to concerns after the assassination of John F. Kennedy that the Presidency would pass to pass to the opposition party due to the deaths of the President and Vice President in succession. At the same time, there are certain pragmatic reasons for keeping congressional figures inside the line as well.
Somewhat ironically, the amendment, which was passed at a time of Democratic dominance in Washington prevented Speaker of the House Carl B. Albert (D-Oklahoma) from assuming the Presidency in Nixon's place.
05 Jan 2007, 6:01 pm
Well, apparently Nancy Pelosi really is trying to not appear self-serving by attempting to impeach. There is this website
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageSer ... e=homepage
that I receive regular e-updates from. There is some huge impeachment rally planned in San Francisco this weekend, and they are trying to get people riled up to protest in the streets until Nancy does move forward. It doesn't appear on their website yet, but I suppose that it is only a matter of time.... I guess if you really care, you can subscribe to their e-updates since they seem to be more current then the site.
05 Jan 2007, 6:20 pm
I don't think Bush should be impeached until after he declares martial law and names himself President-For-Life on January 20, 2009.
I am annoyed at the Democrats already. The House of Representatives website was nice and easy to navigate, and they had to go and change things. 
_________________
Still looking for my antidiluvian baby
05 Jan 2007, 7:11 pm
I am going to address this one by one. This is from the [url]http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage[/quote]website Janicka just posted[/quote] claimed basis of impeachment of the President.
Quote:
Articles of Impeachment
These are not legal articles of impeachment as per the articles delivered against Andrew Johnson, William J. Clinton, or those approved in the judiciary committee against Richard M. Nixon.
of
Quote:
President George W. Bush
and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Donald Rumsfeld has since resigned from office. You cannot impeach someone from a office from which he does not sit. In addition there is doubt of the legality of censuring an official of an office from which he does does not sit. The present Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates.
Quote:
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. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Impeachment is intended only to be related to specific action in serious violation of U.S. law (the depth of which is debated). It is not considered to be used merely as an way to change the government of a executive of which you differ. Andrew Johnson was impeached (and acquitted) for firing his Secretary of War Edward Stanton. Richard Nixon had articles approved against him actions relating to covering up of the Watergate break-in. William Clinton was impeached (and acquitted) for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
Quote:
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:
This is not an objective fact.
Quote:
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.
George Bush did not seize power. He was duly elected in accordance with the United States constitution. He did not receive a majority of the popular vote in his initial election, however this is possible in the American political system (nor do people vote for Prime Ministers in parliamentary systems I might add). There was a court struggle however that was decided in accordance with the American constitutional system.
George Bush got explicit authorization to go the war from the United States congress. It is always been the position of the United States that it does not require the authorization of the United Nations security counsel to go to war, however it did get Resolution 1441 through the Security Counsel demanding certain steps from the government from Iraq. The Baathist dictatorship failed to carry out these steps. Additionally, the UN charter does not ban warfare in all circumstances (in fact, the charter is left rather vague intentional). Iraq had attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States in the past, attacked American warplanes enforcing a no-fly zone that was part of the cease fire agreement, and Iraqi government records show Saddam ordered funding to attacks in "U.S. interests."
Quote:
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
There is zero proof that lied, and giving unintentional false testimony is not a crime. In addition much of the evidence that is claimed to be knowingly false, such as the claim that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium Niger was in fact accurate.
Quote:
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
U.S. military forces have not attacked civilian targets for the purpose of attacking civilians. The few attacks on primarily civilian targets have been to get attempts to get high value targets such as Saddam Hussein. The United States has not signed onto any treaty explicitly barring all attacks on civilians for precisely this reason therefor you cannot charge it as an impeachable offense.
Quote:
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.
The courts that oversaw the program viewed it as perfectly legal. It had been in place for years and had helped catch Russian spies.
Quote:
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
How is this a crime against U.S. law? There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution is regards to it? We overthrew Panama and Grenada's dictatorial government's and very few demanded Bush I or Reagan's impeachments. How much sovereignty does an absolute dictatorship have?
Quote:
Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The United States Constitution does not apply to those in other countries, otherwise we could not listen in to foreign phone conversations. In Addition, the United States never signed any version of the Geneva Convention that applied to those who do not sign the convention themselves or decline to wear uniforms or identify themselves as combatants. During the Second World War, such persons were shot on sight for war crimes.
Quote:
Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.
Again, there is no proof the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMDs. Furthermore, in wartime a certain amount of lying is a necessity and is defensible (and I am not talking about WMDs). By stating that Bush, et al should be impeached for "creating a climate of fear" you are essentially coming close to criminalizing support for the war because your position is not some objective position based on reality based on your own slanted world view (isn't Bush and his advisers allowed to make public statements in support of their own positions?). Those who say Bush is not lying (which includes leaders, and opposition party figures in other countries) must be evil or stupid. There is simply no other basis for someone who believes "Bush is lying" to allow for support for Bush.
Quote:
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
The United States is allowed to reject treaties. Interestingly, this document claims to endorse the U.S. Constitution but that document gives the Senate the right to approve or disprove treaties. If it rejects a treaty that would give "international law" control of U.S. institutions that is not a crime.
Quote:
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."
This might appear stunning but there is actually debate on the limits to this point. For example what if a person goes overseas, declares he is no longer a citizen and fights for the enemy. Is this person still an American citizen with full rights under the constitution? FDR thought not. He thought such people should be tried under military law and hung if found guilty. He even thought people in the US (and I disagree here BTW) caught in such circumstances should not be tried in US courts. But, again, subjectives be damned, and impeach, impeach, impeach!
Quote:
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.
Key word: Non-citizens. Men caught on the battlefield out of uniform not obeying the rules of battle. In a former time, again, they would have been shot. We have signed no treaty stating this cannot be done.
Quote:
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.
Same situation.
Quote:
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.
It is the same as a military trial that the military has. The prosecutor and the judge are not the same.
Quote:
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.
Must [i]al-Qaida/i] know! Information is given to the intelligence committee, but it is not required to be given to all of congress.
Quote:
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
This connects to previous information.
Quote:
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.
Nothing illegal here. This is known as "roving wire taps." There have been attorneys that actually conspire with their clients to commit crimes. Ever hear of Lynn Stewart?
Quote:
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."
Again, this is not a crime. The State Department designates terrorist organizations and freezes their funds and/or bars US from funding them. Ex of such organizations: Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida.
Quote:
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.
Is Governor Kathleen Blanco impeachable too? What about Mayor Nagan?
Quote:
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.
Actually the Transportation Department has barred profiling, and Bush has been cozy with the Muslim extremist group CAIR on the false idea that it will encourage moderation. Still, this isn't a crime anyway.
Quote:
19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
Non-specific.
Quote:
20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
The administration has the authority withdraw a signature from a treaty if it sees fit. Constitutional rules apply as always.
