Kinda OT but there is an interesting clause in the constitution that could allow shrub to dismiss Harry’s pro-forma Senate sessions (Art II Sect 3). Am I reading this right? If so, it would be very interesting to see him use this.

He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.

I thought about that. It’s clear that the President can call a Special Session, or keep Congress IN SESSION. But the second clause an ny be invoked IF there is DISAGREEMENT between the Houses in term of their time of adjournment. Once adjourned he can keep them adjourned it appears.

So I can only see that Bush would be capable of this IF he controls one or the other Houses of Congress.

Either House can protest the adjournment time of the other, and maintain it in business.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

This is where the disagreement could occur, and would require one House to refuse to accede to the wishes of the other accede to the wishes of the other by ADJOURNING LONGER THAN three days while the other wished to return to activity sooner.

The purpose of Presidential involvement was clearly to encourage agreement and split the difference

However The 20th Amendment Section 2 states “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting SHALL begin at noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.”

So the President cannot adjurn Congress beyond THAT date. And he should not be able to force a suspension of Congress if either house really doesn’t want to force the issue. They could simply say…”okay dammit…we’ll return when the Senate convenes again”.

Congrats to Dubina, Carnes and the Paris Hilton of the Appellate Judiciary Frank Hull who has not one nanosecond of federal litigation experience in any federal court–great qualifications for being on a Court of Appeals– like a surgeon who has never trained to be a doctor.

Schwab v. Department of Corrections No. 07-15329

What a great federal judiciary we have where a substantial percentage of judges have never practiced law in a federal courtroom.

As to holding criminals in the Bush administration accountable, the full House now votes on the Contempt Citation passed by House Judiciary as to Miers and Bolton. Good luck with that, because even if the gutless House passed it and the Caveocrat Democrats will make sure it doesn’t, Mukasey is such a Bush suckass he’s not about to make the U.S. Attorney also a Bush suckass for the District of Columbia seek a criminal indictment as good as the thought of Harriet Miers getting a little slutty–a little nutty in the BOP sounds.

In Contempt NYT 11/16/07

realworld @ 65

Bob, this is the approach the Dems need to take with everything. Why should they demean themselves by thinking they have to compromise with scum like this administration. Every one of the progressive positions is simple to state and understand and the Dems just have to get and stay on message and they will win.

Will they do that. Don’t bet on it.

However, As ClammyC sees it, we’re on the right track…

* The House passed a bill that would give $50 billion, largely tied to bringing the troops home. While it is far from perfect, it did get support from some of the Out of Iraq Caucus;
* The Senate had two bills introduced today, both of which did not have 60 votes.
* Reid introduced a bill that basically mirrored the House bill – it “failed”, 53-45
* McConnell introduced a bill (without consulting Reid) that would give $70 billion with no strings attached. That bill failed, 45-53.

So, what does that mean? Well, for starters, we have three things that come from this.

(1) The Democratic Party passed a bill with both a majority of the House and Senate, which reflects current American sentiment to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end.

(2) The republican party will not let the will of the people speak, nor will it let a majority of Congress’ will speak for the American people.

(3) The republicans in the Senate are hell bent on giving blank check after blank check to Bush for an unending occupation of Iraq – against the will of America.

http://www.boomantribune.com/s…../115436/59

But in fact…Bush has no money appropriated for the troops in Iraq BECAUSE HE…..HE!!!!…has threatened to veto this Bill passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress…and BLOCKED by Republicans.

If THEY don’t compromise the burden lies with THEM for not negotiating in good faith.

eCAHNomics @ 8

Could we eventually get ‘em, or will Hillary grant ‘em pardons?

That is a real and worrisome possiblility. Wasn’t that basically what Bill did with everything pappi bush didn’t explicitly pardon. Of course let us not forget that Bill was apparently an admirer of Nixon.

A President cannot pardon any individual to prevent IMPEACHMENT.

William Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War was impeached, even after he attempted to evade the trial by resigning. The House fully debated the issue and passed the charges to the Senate. The Senate also debate the item of whether impeachment could occur after an officeholder had left office. Here too, the judgement was that this was indeed the intent of the Framers. However the vote was close and upon Party Lines. When the actual vote to convict came, Belknap was found “not guilty” when a small handful felt that his resignation was suffcient punishment joined with those Party Members who held the trial was not justified.

TheraP @ 22

At least this woman is trying to do something! And for that I give her credit. It may go nowhere. But I am for any and all legislation that at least puts on the table the issues which are driving all of us nuts.

And the PrezCandis should be asked their opinion of this in the debates. No more Clinton “bygones” Presidencies, please. Indict, try, convict, imprison.

Impeachment after leaving office can also be used to deny emoluments of office: motorcades, offices, aides, Secret Service protection, pensions, and healthcare. Shrub and Dick have enriched themselves enough to pay for this themselves; besides, our deficit-burdened budget can’t afford it.

Conviction by impeachment, according to the Constition, results in

” removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”So impeachment not only REMOVES… it DISQUALIFIES. Thus one can impeach AFTER the fact, to disqualify an officeholder from future positions of honor, trust, or profit”.

What are positions of honor, trust, or profit?

These can constitute everything from

-the ability to use honorifics (”The President of the United States” in being addressed or on stationary) or symbols of office (the Great Sea

- receiving any funds, gifts, or items that are property of the United States (i.e. documents, photographs, gifts provided while the person served in office…ooops…there goes the “Dubya Presidential Library”)

- receiving Honorary Titles and Degrees

- serving as an advisor to Congress, the President, or lobbying either

- receiving any contract, scholarship, grant using Federal Funds. This would inhibit their employment in Companies that applied for Federal Contracts unless their role compartmented them from contact with decisionmakers.

-the ability to use office space, franking privileges, or the ability to fundraise or travel and speak while using the Title “President of the United States”

-the right to restrict access of non-classified Presidential or Vice Presidential documents from the eyes of historians, researchers, Congressional investigators, or the DOJ. They could not simply block access under the Bush Vintage Executive Order that broadened the protection of presidential records.

-the right of interment in Arlington National Cemetary.

-No appointments to roles such as Commissioner of Baseball (sorry Dubya), Judgeships, Ambassadorships, Special Envoy Status, etc.

-Some would hold that the individual could not practice before a Federal Court as either a prosecuting or defense attorney…as these are “positions of trust”.

Their Conviction on Charges of Impeachment might serve to bring question to their reliability as a witness in Federal Court. A sworn witness sits in a “position of trust” before the Court. Such a point could be used to discredit their honesty before a judge or jury, just as much as a pattern of perjury or series of criminal felonies or misdemeanors might.

The Constitution takes such awards of titles quite seriously and defines what an “emoulement” in some detail in the Constitution when it discusses what can happen when one receives a Foreign Title without permission of Congress. Emoluments included, but was not limited to gifts, pensions, and offices.

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any TITLE OF NOBILITY OR HONOUR, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

Clearly, the case above would not apply to IMPEACHMENT…there is no suggestion that Impeachment requires remission of citizenship.

But there are lots of other, very important, ways of removing the honor that an impeached and convicted officeholder must confront.

Am I wearing a tinfoil hat here? Clearly this administration has committed impeachable offenses. Crimes against the people: easily documented!

Suspension of habeas corpus: NO, Bill Clinton did not do that!

[Incoherent with rage she pauses, drags on her cigarette, and tries to calm down.]

Please remind me again, exactly why is impeachment off the table–?

Impeachment is off the table, because 1. Pelosi is not a democrat, 2. Someone in the administration has something big on her and will expose her if she votes the wrong way, 3. She is rich, and, like, you know, the rich run the country. Pelosi and Reid should also be impeached, after all, they took an oath to defend and protect the constitution, and they ain’t doing it. It is the rich against the rest of us, and the sooner we learn that, the sooner we learn to send people to congress who are not in the pockets of these people, the sooner we’ll get the constitution back. Remember, Terrorist Centeral is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC. It is not until there are more honest men and women down the road, in the House and Senate office buildings that we’ll get the Constitution back…if it’s not too late already. Why is impeachment off the table, because Pelosi doesn’t give a flying F**K.

One I’m GLAD I voted for!

I cried.

Elliott @ 33

How can this be a just society if we DON’T bring BushCo to justice?

and that ’s exactly the point. We can’t wait to impeach until after they leave office. The head of steam that constitutes the national rage against these guys should be optimized now. People will indeed have moved on once the election is over; the sheer relief , no matter who wins the election, will deflate everyone justifiable rage.. Now is the time to exercise the impeachment option. To insist on it. I believe it is the only only way most americans will have any faith in the system again. The notion floated by dems that the smart thing to do is “run out the clock” on these criminals who have casued the death of a million or more innocent people is too cowardly to be believed. I sense the country NEEDS to see these guys pay, especially right now when so many people are hurting and struggling to just survive, keep their homes, put gas in the guzzler cars these guys promote.

Just before the last election there was a panel of lawyers and law profs on cspan taling about a basis for impeachment. They all said we should be demanding of any democrat who wanted our vote that they state publicly they would support impeachment. And if they waffled, no vote for them, and let them know that. They were right. The dems have hosed the nation and don’t deserve the thin majority they got. I’ve been calling and writing my whole congressional delegation often, reminding them that I am NOT voting for anyone who doesn’t support the Kuchinich resolution now. I think we couldl do this if everyone called every dem who voted to table the resolution and threatened to not vote for them in 08. And mean it. They think they have us over a barrel. They don’t. They need us worse than we need them. People have to start believeing that. Thanks.

Yes!
ITMFa

Sign me up.
ITMFA