You are herecontent / Wisconsin Proposes Impeachment, Joining MN, IL, WA, CA, TX, VT, NM, MO

Wisconsin Proposes Impeachment, Joining MN, IL, WA, CA, TX, VT, NM, MO

By Stacy Forster, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Boyle calls for Bush impeachment
Madison -- State Rep. Frank Boyle (D-Superior) wants to see President Bush impeached and will introduce a joint resolution saying that Bush has violated his oath of office.

Boyle said passage of the resolution would create "good cause" to launch impeachment proceedings; legislatures in six other states have introduced such resolutions, he said.

"President Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing someone and President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex...President George W. Bush is guilty of far more reprehensible actions," Boyle said in a statement.

The resolution accuses Bush of spying on U.S. citizens without warrant, manipulating intelligence data to start the war against Iraq and leaking classified secrets to advance a political agenda, among other charges.

In Tuesday's elections, voters in Stoughton rejected a referendum question asking whether impeachment proceedings against Bush should begin on a 55% to 45% margin.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I need clarification. If there are seven States querying for impeachment, who and why are they being rebuffed? Are there any references in the Constitution that empowers the public majority to override the Speaker of the House or any Committees which may block the query? This is certainly a serious crevass which needs to be looked at. These resolutions ,and rightly so, appear and quickly are extinguished. Can someone enlighten me? Certainly our Forefathers had to have had the forsight to forsee a corruption or monopoly in Government process....

If there are seven States querying for impeachment, who and why are they being rebuffed?

Rebuffed because apparently people do not realize the war crimes implications. BOth parites are making excuss not to put the Constitution first; and putting their party agendas before the Constitution. Arguably, this is illegal and a violation of their oath of office.

Are there any references in the Constitution that empowers the public majority to override the Speaker of the House or any Committees which may block the query?

There is nothing in the Constitution which specifically addresses proclamations. However, Grand Juries can prosecute the Speaker if she refuses to fully assert her oath and blocks efforts to protect the Constitution or denies the states their right to an enforcement mechanism.

Short Answer

Yes, Grand Juries may prosecute the Speaker for war crimes if it is their view that she has blocked enforcement of the laws of war; or has not fully asserted her oath to fully protect the Constitution, or ensure the States are ensured their right to an enforcement mechanism. These are issues of alleged war crimes and 5 USC 3331 violations which all Members of Congress could be prosecuted. There is no statute of limitations; and the evidence of blocking state impeachments on proclamations could be admitted eternally for universal jurisdiction against all American civilians, leadership, Members of Congress, and prosecutors and attorney generals who refuse to fully do all they can to protect the Constitution and enforce the laws of war.


You asked who might be rebuffing these proclamations calling for impeachment. It appears the leadership in both the DNC and GOP are doing it. Kind of makes one wonder who at the local level is serious about their oath of office.

In my view, even if the GOP-DNC leadership block state level impeachments, the goal will have been met: The public will get the chance to see -- or, in this case, not see -- their government at work. Regardless what happens, the voters at the local level are going to get information on which local and federal officials are or are not fully asserting their oath; and this will give people at the local level information on who they can trust to do their business in government.

Efforts by the DNC and GOP leadership to block this impeachment proclamation effort may block the proclamation, but it will not do much good to stop the public from discussing what needs to be done to find more responsive leadership. It cannot be argued that leaders have "more important" things to do when the number one duty is to protect the Constitution.

American citizens are getting important information with this proclamation stonewall: Who is or is not serious about using all means to protect the Constitution. Local citizens can put pressure on their state attorney generals saying, "Hay, Congress and the State legislature are not acting; please prosecute the President as is permitted outside the impeachment process. Talk to Jonathan Turley, Prof of law at Georgetown how state attorney generals and grand juries to prosecute a sitting President outside Congress."
In the end, history will know: American citizens, not the US or state governments, ultimately took the bull by the horns and forced the leadership to go on the record: "Are they are are they not willing to put their oath of office before their loyalty to party or the President." Both the DNC and GOP leadership are sending a clear signal with the efforts to block the state proclamations calling for impeachment: "We are going to complain about the abuse of power, but do nothing to provide leadership to conduct investigations, impeach, or hold the President to account."

Whether Congress does or does not impeach is meaningless: The President does not get immunity from Congress, he remains subject not to Congress, but to the law. Congress, even if it decides to do nothing, cannot immunize the President from his oath compelling him to answer to only the law. The national and state leadership are pretending that if Congress does nothing, then all other things are irrelevant. Wrong. The National and state leadership have not looked at the other side of the equation: "If the leadership refuses to act, what options does the state and local citizenry have to protect the Constitution."

The choice is not between RNC abuse of power and DNC inaction; but between the Constitution and the President's illegal rebellion. The final answer is not what happens in 2008, but from this moment on: How will future generations -- including the electorate in 2008 -- choose to reconsider whether their leadership is or is not fully asserting their oath; and has the leadership really done all it can do to protect the Constitution.

The answer is clear, in my mind: Despite many options to protect the Constitution, both the GOP and DNC leaders at the federal and local levels have not done all they can. Arguably, this is a violation of their oath of office, 5 USC 3331. The way forward is to broaden the accountability and force the legal community to choose: Are they withe President; or are they with the Constitution. Those in the legal community -- especially Members of Congress who are members of the attorney bar -- who refuse to act, have an eternal problem: War crimes have no statute of limitations.

If Congress and the local leadership refuses to act on the state proclamation for impeachment it means going forward -- because there is no statute of limitations on war crimes -- state officials could as well be prosecute for having failed to enforce their oath of office and the attached Geneva Treaty obligations to ensure the Conventions are enforced.

More broadly, the sate proclamation effort to impeach also gives the public information on whether state officials are willing to act if there have been violations of the Constitutional guarantee to an enforcement mechanism. For there to be a Republic, the law must be enforced; yet, the Constitution, when it is not enforced, is not linked -- as it should -- with the required obligation to the sate to provide that enforcement mechanism. Again, the issue isn't the list of abuses that are not being addressed, but the list of fair warning that state officials need to act, but are not doing what they should to fully assert their oath.

Regardless what happens with the proclamations on impeachment, the way forward is to broaden the discussion and open the issue to the voting public in your local community: "Give the clear abuses, options, and possibility to do something, what do we as citizens need to discuss by way of finding new leaders, and holding the legal community responsible, when they have duties to act, but they refuse to do what they should." The way forward is to review the attorney standards of conduct, oaths of office, Geneva obligations of US officials, and explore the situations at Nuremberg where civilians refused to act to enforce the law.

Civilian leaders can be prosecuted for war crimes, especially when there are tools, options, and legal mechanisms to enforce the laws of war. The way forward is to again consider the larger issue: If these state proclamations are blocked by the DNC and GOP leadership, how can that active effort be documented,a and forwarded for purposes of adjudicating war crimes against state and federal civilian government officials. Because there is no statue of limitations, the efforts of the DNC and GOP in 2006-9 to blocking impeachment efforts and state proclamations on impeachment could be admitted into evidence as a fair showing of what the leadership knew their duties were; what they refused to support; and what they actively blocked.

Also, taking it one step further, in light of the DOJ e-mails in re the US Attorney firings, we've leaned the orchestrations behind the scenes to do things. Just as these e-mails were subpoenaed, so too can the GOP-DNC e-mails in re blocking the impeachment proclamations. Just as the DOJ e-mails were deleted, so too, my implication, are the e-mails showing the GOP and DNC blocking efforts to enforce the law, Geneva conventions, and the Supreme Law.

Because the GOP has -- as it appears -- destroyed evidence in re the GOP and DOJ e-mail efforts in re US Attorney firings, the same problem areas with the war crimes issues: To what extent e-mails showing the GOP and DNC leadership have blocked efforts to pass these impeachment proclamations to ensure the Conventions are not enforced. In so many words, the US Attorney e-mail deletions isn't just about US Attorneys, but about the larger evidence destruction linking US civilian officials at the state and local level to alleged evidence destruction in re war crimes and Geneva. Again, given Terr is no statue of limitations on war crimes, the issue with the state proclamations for impeachment and the DNC and GOP efforts to block those efforts, it means the e-mails documenting those planned stonewalling -- or the evidence of their destruction -- is further evidence in re alleged war crimes.

The question will be whether the US public decides to put this on the table, and -- outside Congress -- simply vote in 2008 saying: "Even if you block impeachment proclamations, we still expect the Grand Juries, DOJ, and US Attorneys and State Attorney generals to protect the Constitution, provide and enforcement mechanism, and ensure that all efforts to block accountability for these war crimes are also entered into evidence." I think the public is smart enough to put this together and make it clear to the civilian leadership and the state and local levels: "IF you don't support the Constitution, don't expect any sympathy from any Grand Jury reviewing alleged efforts to block enforcement of the Geneva Conventions." Nuremberg reminds us that even civil an leaders can be prosecuted and lawfully executed for failing to enforce the laws of war. The lines of evidence are broad, wide, and even state officials implicated in this alleged effort to block enforcement of Geneva could result in lawful executions -- after trial, of course -- of civilian party officials at the state level. It will take time; but the e-mail destruction, planning, and efforts to block enforcement of Geneva through the impeachment proclamation is a fair case to be made as was done at Nuremberg.

california allows for such measures

it is time to remove the people that will not do it

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.