Jill R. Vin Weber, R -Minn. Neither distributor Warner Bros.
Search - ciathinta.tk
Francis police officer subject of criminal investigation over possible data breach … there is no conflict of interest. David Camp, R -Mich. Raising the capital gains rate, ending… Article January 19, — am 'American Sniper' hits its box office marks, and then some … in , after adjusting for inflation. All rights reserved. Home All Sections Search. Log In Welcome, User.
Minneapolis St. Davis 4…. Readers Write Jan. Stop hijacking the Constitution. We should not be having this debate now while our troops are in battle. But if, if they insist on ramming this matter through at any cost, give us the opportunity, give the country the opportunity, to express themselves on censure. If Members cannot set aside partisan politics until our troops are safe, at least, at the very least, let us have a clean vote of conscience, and let us bring America together once again. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas Mr.
Speaker, the decision we are faced with today is of singular importance.
- early wise county texas marriage records.
- Beating the Odds: A Teen Guide to 75 Superstars Who Overcame Adversity.
- texas court of criminal appeals blog.
We are being asked to overturn the results of a presidential election under a procedure that is fundamentally unfair, and at a time that is contrary to the strategic national interests of the United States. There are three issues involved here today: the unfairness of this proceeding, the timing of this action, and the merits of whether or not to impeach the President. Let us start with the fundamental unfairness of this proceeding. The Republicans have denied the House the opportunity to vote on censuring the President, even though a clear majority of the American public believes the President should be censured for his conduct but not removed from office.
Leading members of the Republican Party, former President Gerald Ford, former Senator Bob Dole, have urged the censure option, but we are being denied the opportunity to even consider it today.
- marriage record for dallas county texas.
- Additional information.
- CHSS Faculty Publications.
- how many inmates are on death row in texas.
There is no fairness on this floor today. Second, the Republican majority, by starting this proceeding today, while we are engaged in military action against Saddam Hussein, sends entirely the wrong message to Saddam and to the rest of the world. We have a great bipartisan tradition of supporting the Commander in Chief and supporting our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the time of war.
That tradition is being shattered today by a partisan majority. Seven years ago I joined 86 of our colleagues, of our Democratic colleagues, in supporting a Republican President, George Bush, when he initiated military action against Saddam Hussein. I disagreed with President Bush on a variety of matters, but I felt it was important to show national unity against Saddam. By starting this proceeding against President Clinton today, we are sending the ultimate mixed message to Saddam about our national resolve.
We may be encouraging him to resist longer by our actions in the midst of war. Starting this proceeding today may wind up costing American lives.
The majority may well have blood on its hands by starting this proceeding today. We certainly could have waited until Monday to pursue this proceeding, giving our military time to pursue its mission. That brings me to the question of the merits. The Republican majority is trivializing the U. Constitution and setting a terrible precedent by pressing for impeachment on these particular grounds.
What Clinton did was wrong, but it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. We should reserve impeachment for those rare instances that undermine our form of government and threaten the essence of democracy.
It should not be used as a club by a partisan majority that dislikes the particular president. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Speaker, today's vote is set upon an unfair, false choice. This historic decision should be a moment above all political maneuvering. Instead, it is riddled with unfairness, sloppy procedure, and mean-spirited partisanship. Where is their sense of fairness?
Somewhere along the way, some in this House forgot that Bill Clinton is our President, not their personal enemy. The Constitution is not a license to destroy a president because one does not like him. I believe the President's actions were reprehensible and worthy of condemnation, but the clearest, most appropriate way to send a message about this President's behavior is censure. That is what our best legal scholars say, that is what the American public says.
If the Republican leadership would allow us the freedom to vote our conscience, that would be the option.
A censure would put an indelible scar upon the President's place in history, something we all know this President cares about deeply. It is a tough, just, and appropriate punishment. It would not absolve the President of any future indictment and prosecution of alleged perjury. Impeachment, however, should not be used as a form of super censure. Far from upholding the rule of law, a vote for impeachment under these circumstances weakens and undermines the rule of law, turning our Constitution into an unfair political tool.
But we [[ Page H ]] would not have impeached Nixon alone for lying. I warn my colleagues that they will reap the bitter harvest of the unfair partisan seeds they sow today.
- cell free number phone search that.
- 4 dwi and a homicide by motor vehicle wisconsin;
The constitutional provision for impeachment is a way to protect our government and our citizens, not another weapon in the political arsenal. Monica Lewinsky is not Watergate. Let he who has no sin in this Chamber cast the first vote. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Barney Frank , a senior member from Massachusetts on the Committee on the Judiciary. Speaker, this House is launched on a historically tragic case of selective moralizing. By the history of this country, the appropriate response to lying about a consensual sexual affair would be censure.
When Speaker Gingrich was found to have been inaccurate 13 times in an official proceeding to the House Ethics Committee, he was reprimanded and simultaneously reelected Speaker with the overwhelming vote of Members on that side.
Much more than documents.
That is why we believe censure is appropriate. The American people also believe censure is appropriate. Let me agree with those who say that simply because a large number of the voters believe something, we are not obligated to vote for it. I welcome this assertion that we have an obligation not always to follow public opinion. But while we have the right not to vote for something just because there is overwhelming public support, in a democracy, we have no right not to vote on it.
We have a right to stand up honestly and say, I disagree with censure.
Related teen issues divorce rude disorderly rebellious keller texas
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved