off topic: Re: SEINFELD'S DEPRAVITY

[email] (GMusson003) writes:

Yes, George. The framer's of the constitution wrote it to be a *living* document. An impeachable offense is whatever the citizen-elected members of the House of Representatives decide that it is. This is a political process. It was designed to be a political process.

Yes, George. The framer's of the constitution wrote it to be a *living* document. An impeachable offense is whatever the citizen-elected members of the House of Representatives decide that it is. This is a political process. It was designed to be a political process.

Not quite. It's true that it is up to Congress to decide what is impeachable WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the tradition and the intent of the founders. Living document does not mean just "do what you feel like it at some point in history". If that were true, the constitution would have no meaning and there would be no stability, no tradition. Also, does Congress really want it to appear that their actions are purely political with no attention to law? THe whole proceeding is presided over by the Chief Justice. As far as the political side of it, over 60 percent of the American people do not want impeachment. These polls still have not changed. (Check gallop if you don't believe me, or CNN online) If this IS a political process, they WILL pay attention to this. The congressman is still supposed to represent the will of the people.. That's democracy.

And they also MUST look to the tradition because both parties with have to live with the precedent they set in years to come. The president is elected by the people and constitutes an aspect of the balance of power. Also, presumably these officials do not want to precipitate national or world chaos. Why do you think world political leaders are worried about this? And the rest of us. ESPECIALLY when there is so ,much controversy about whether it is the right thing to do. Coup d'Etats are not supposed to be able to happen here just because one party is displeased with another. Also, I'll wager you there will be a debate concerning the principle of impeachment and there has only been one voice out of maybe 10 legal experts on the constitution (law teachers throughout the country) who believe it is impeachable. They will have to call these people if only to appear to be doing their job. Remember, the essence of "political" is appearance. They have to at least LOOK to their constituents as if they are impartial and seeking justice.

This does not go to the issue of whether he could be put in jail, as someone remarked. It is possible that when his term is up, he could be tried.

You may not realize this, but a president can commit a crime without it being a "high" crime or warranting impeachment. A "low" crime of Nixon which Congress voted to disregard was lying on his taxes! You tell me, is this better or worse than lying about sex. The big "coverup" was about sex, face it. It was a sex coverup. Oooooh, mercy me! If I were the dems, I'd call in a Hormonal expert to testify as to the power of Testosterone over the male mentality. They might find it's impossible to tell the truth in certain circumstances. Biologically impossible. Hormonally impossible. :) Maybe they could show that great clip of Jerry's imaginal chess game when he was dating the bad actress. WHat was the name of that episode? Wouldnt that be great? Seinfeld goes to Congress!

BTW, older Americans still remember the McCarthy era and they are already talking about the new sexual McCarthy era we seem to be entering if Congress can call in people and force testimony of what goes on in the bedroom.

We have already seen a dangerous precedent set - In future, whoever is President of the US, he will have NO guaranteed privacy on anything whatsoever because now anyone close to him in the White House can be called and forced to testify about his activities, including the most personal activities or any thoughts he may have ever shared with anyone about anything.

Thanks Tim. Enough on this! I hate arguing anyhow. I'll shut up now. I just couldnt seem to let it go by. Anyhow, Philip never responded to the part I thought was fun. The scene of Jerry playing chess with himself in his imagination while reading parts with the budding actress. A great scene! cynth

On 26 Oct 1998, Raingluttn wrote:

Thanks to Channel 10 *signofthecross* who knows when Aussies will be able to see this episode again. Still the same series endlessly repeated. :( If they mentioned sex once in that episode they may show it on the Black Label Collection..

Tim

[email] (Raingluttn) writes: > >

The consititution was designed purposefully vague in some areas to be flexible according to the times, the people, the circumstances. The framers did not want to create a static document which didn't provide for some change and interpretation over time or else they knew it would not survive. That is why our constitution has lasted much longer than most other modern nations.

Why does "political" get such a bad name? We are not talking about criminal code here. We are talking about decisions and processes based on a political document. Such decisions muct be constitutional, but that is by nature a political decision (checked by the USSC).

But we are proceeding with the impeachment process. There are other polls which show different numbers based on the preferences of registered voters who are likely to vote. Many congressman feel that they are doing the correct thing according to the constitution.

We live in a democracy, but not a direct democracy--a representative democracy. Legislators are elected by the people to serve in their absence. We have eleceted these people to legislate to the best of their ability and judgement. A representative democracy does not mean that they should do everything we say. It means that they are representing us in fact collection, deliberation, and decision making. Not every citizen can be privilege to all of the best information and make the best decisions. Of course there are issues and situations of which the people can have more direct input. <snip>

It was the way in which he covered it up--perjury, subornation of pj, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Maybe all the charges are not true but the evidence is much higher than need be to warrant an investigation--which is what we are doing.

Sociology major? What a liberal ideal! It is "blame circumstances and society for individual decisions."

Don't commit adultery and use government resources and time for a cover up and there is nothing to hide.

It ceased being a private matter when he did it in government workspace and discussed critical decisions (like whether to commit troops to Yugoslavia) while being blown by the Lewinsky!

[email] (Raingluttn) writes:

The constitutionality of the Independent Counsel statute is a different question than if Starr followed the mandate--no he wasn't perfect, but overall I like his peformance.

Sorry, no misinformation here. It is a fact that he was highly acclaimed on both sides of the aisle during his career for the attributes I listed. It is my opinion he did a good job.

The more unbiased media (MSNBC--less than others anyway) have said as much.

That's a good argument but falls easily when looking at the evidence. Big bosses don't control all the little people. There is no question about the left lean in the media over time.

"homerr" writes: >

Here, here..my responses have been a bit tamer because I don't think anyone here would listen anyway. Clinton has committed perjury and there is good evidence he committed subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. At the very least he deserves to be indicted (impeached) and tried on these issues--in or out of office. This is just the tip of the iceberg---how about accepting treasonous bribes from China for starters. Does anyone realize the missile technology he has let out of the country? Now he's conspiring with Israel for the release of a convicted spy against the United States in exchange for Israel's cooperation on the peace process to make himself look better.

Cynth, it was hiiii-larious. And the brain won! Imagine that--he controlled himself. (It was a funny scene.)

Lates, Philip