Impeach Cheney

If you believe in the Constitution than you must impeach Cheney. The grounds of the proposed impeachment are that the Vice President:

  1. fabricated a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,
  2. purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and
  3. has threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, all in detriment to the national interest of the United States.

Supporting Documents for H Res 333

On April 24, 2007, U.S. House Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333, calling for articles of impeachment to be sent to the U.S Senate with regards to Vice President Richard B. Cheney.

If you believe that Vice President Cheney should be impeached, then vote "Yes" here.

The one click form on this page will send your personal message to all your members of Congress, with your vote on the the question "Should Vice President Cheney be impeached?" At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below.

Nevermind the fact that both Cheney and Bush have attempted to subvert our Constitutionally guarenteed rights to privacy by breaking FISA laws, and have overseen a series of illegal efforts designed to delgitamize the Congress' right to advise and consent on too many issues based on their false and traitorous Neoconservative/Neoliberal theories of a "Unitary Executive".

This is a Democracy, not a kingdom, and impeachment is the only means left to secure the rights of the people.

Via Wikipedia:

The phrase "unitary executive" that was discussed in the Constitutional Convention referred merely to having a single individual fill the office of President, as proposed in the Virginia Plan, rather than have several executives or an executive council, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan and as promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason; and that the Constitutional Convention debates show that the Founders' primary concern behind whether to have a single executive or an executive council was to choose the one that would ensure that the executive would be relatively weaker and more easily restrained by the legislature; that those who argued for a unitary executive advanced the argument because they considered that the best way to limit the executive’s power and keep it subordinate to the legislature, in opposition to arguments that a plural executive would support the executive’s independence; and the term "unitary executive" was thereby bound up with the intention of keeping executive power checked and restrained.

For example, James Wilson emphasized the advantage of greater accountability with a single chief executive:

"The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes... far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment."


No comments: