A Libertarian, Paleoconservative, Progressive and Liberal Reason to Impeach Bush

I was going to write yet another in a long series of rants on the Patriot Act tonight until I connected two bits of recent news together. Obviously, we carry a lot of Patriot Act news at HoT, but there may no longer be a point to any continuance of the effort.

Libertarians, paleoconservatives, progressives and liberals alike are likely to be wasting their time fighting the Patriot Act considering the recent relevations that Bush blatantly acted outside of the Constitution (and even the questionable FISA) with respect to civil liberties issues.

If Bush is above the law, what is the reason for having law in the first place? Is there any point to be made about how the law actually reads if it is disregarded anyway? Following GOP calls for impeachment over a blowjob and a cum-stained blue dress, I’ve been slow to jump on board this bandwagon, but perhaps it is now time for a serious call for impeachment. For a variety of reasons, many have called for impeachment before. Others have hesitated a bit. Perhaps now we can all work together on this unified line-of-attack.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. Gordon writes:
    If Bush is above the law, what is the reason for having law in the first place? Is there any point to be made about how the law actually reads if it is disregarded anyway?

    This thought process can be applied to congress and the Constitution. Is there any point in having a “supreme law of the land” if congress disregards it?

    The only way a GD piece of paper can hold any power is if “the people” stand behind it… so, we have a congress that doesn’t abide by the Constitution and an electorate who could give a shit about who they elect to “protect” it… It’s a lose – lose situation. Merry F’ing Christmas… :)

  2. In re impeaching Bush, I’m utterly for – it but more for the principle than the effect unless Cheney is also tried by the Senate. It’s hard to contemplate the idea of a worse president than W, but Dick might very well be a bad trade.

    In re the reason for having the law in the first place, see Ronn Neff’s essay “Gun Control Libertarians” at The Last Ditch http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/ut011.htm .

  3. Mike,

    I’ll agree that almost the entire Congress has been violating the Constitution for years, but it would be difficult to impeach them all. My point is that it may be possible to have enough of a coalition to force a Bush impeachment as a result of current relevations.

  4. The “impeaching” that you are ranting and crying about is incredibly hilarous. Did you know the wire-tapping went on during the Clintion administration shortly after the Oklahoma City bombings? No one talks about this…why is that? Its the same reason, Clinton wanted to act fast against an enemy that would change plans. So Clinton was above the law too? No its called smart judgement. He’s not imposing on anyones rights, but trying to protect idiots like the guy that called for the “impeachment” What an idiot.

  5. These claims of the Clinton administration conducting warrantless searches of American citizens are complete bullshit until I see some sources.

    And spare me if you are going to cite Clinton and Carter’s executive orders because they BOTH explicitly deny the warrantless searches of American citizens.

    If you have evidence, show it. If not, shut the hell up already.

  6. I haven’t seen such proof, either. Not that I liked Clinton, but I just haven’t see da proof.

  7. Exactly, Stephen. It is just that I keep hearing this “Clinton did it” rhetoric repeated over and over without anyone actually backing up their claims and it is starting to annoy me.

    It’s about time they either put up or shut up.