Read this to me!!Originally written on January 20, 2005:
Today, dear readers, I wear black. Today for me is not a happy day. Today, we see a criminal installed into the White House as President of The United States of America. I am not one of those who merely hate Bush and call him a criminal. I have a very strong argument for his impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is as follows:
Pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: Congress is granted the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
This was the primary argument for the USAPATRIOT Act, a highly controversial law past just after September 11, 2001. However, several parts of it are unconstitutional, most notably the portion detailing how persons suspected of terrorism may be held without the right of the writ of habeas corpus.
Pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Therefor, no one may, at this time, be held without the Writ of Habeas Corpus. To do so is in direct violation of constitutional law. This being the case, I believe that the entire USAPATRIOT Act requires constitutional review by the US Supreme Court. To do anything else would give further legitimacy to something that should never have existed in the first place.
Last of all, my most pressing issue of all: Bush's blatant violation of the UN Charter. In going into Iraq without authorization, President Bush violated one of the most basic principles of the UN Charter- maintaining peace in the world.
At the most basic level, such a violation of the UN Charter is cause for immediate sanctions against the offending party. However, since it was the US, no one is going to do a damn thing about it. I wouldn't mind sanctions if it meant Bush was impeached, but that won't happen. So maybe this will help:
Pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, any treaty signed by the US, the UN Charter included, are included in the "Supreme Law of the Land." Therefore, Bush, having violated this Supreme Law, is thereby liable to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Of course, it's not going to happen, my dear readers. However unfortunate it may be, it most likely won't happen. But do me a favor: Pass this along to people. Let them know. Exercise your right to free speech. Tell people the truth about our commander in chief. The staff of
The Daily Geek is certainly not un-biased. It's just me, The Josh, and I
hate that man with a passion. So you see my point. At any rate...
Happy geeking and good day.
-
The Daily Geek Staff
Update:
(From the audio of this article)
"I'm going to make a little bit of an ammendment here, that's not written down at this point and I'll probably get around to it, but, having researched the actual UN resolutions involved in this whole mess, apparently resolution 1441 says that member states of the UN can use, "any means necessary" to go ahead and keep Iraq in order. That being the case, that nullifies that last portions of this article. However, it still seems to me to be a very,very shaky justification. I don't think war was necessary, and I'm sure that you could probably get a lot of people to agree with me on that. But whatever the case may be, I'm afraid I'm going to have to retract most of this. I'll write it down eventually, until then it's in here."
