0 votes

Why Ron Paul Voted to Table the 'Impeachment Vote'

This comes from http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/documents/976.php

I said in a previous post that Rep. Paul had a firm reason to table the vote from Mr. Cheney's impeachment.

We admire this candidate for his honesty and voting record and as much as we want to see Vice President Cheney removed from office, we need to follow the Constitutional procedures that are laid out for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.

I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report.

I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.

I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.

Comment viewing options

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

Why would anyone be against discovering the truth?

Vice President Dick Cheney is suspected of committing several impeachable offenses. Unfortunately, to date, in depth investigations have been thwarted due to "executive privilege." Impeachment hearings removes this protection and allows for the truth to come out. Why would anyone be against discovering the truth? Google "Wexler Wants Hearings" for more information about impeachment hearings.

Kucinich has more integrity

Impeachment is simply a legal statement that there are charges that should be brought to court. There is nothing in the constitution that says that impeachment litigation needs to be reviewed by the Judiciary branch. In fact after congress votes on impeachment it must be voted by a second body of government before it can even go to court. Impeachment is not a judgement of guilt, it is a statement that there is evidence that should be looked at in court. Ron Paul has stated numerous times live that this war is illegal. Yet he votes as if he is not sure. He moves it to another to decide. A do-nothing congressman would lead to a do-nothing president. He needs to put his supporter's money where his mouth is. Honestly he has lost my vote.

When a person is accused of murder in this country do we vote on whether or not the evidence should be reviewed in court? No. We decide in court whether evidence is proof of guilt. Yet the evidence brought before us suggest that our vice president may be responsible for many losses of life. We treat politicians better than we treat our ordinary citizens. Why?

We as american citizens can vote for impeachment ourselves under the "Jefferson Manual" in the constitution. Please take part in what you believe in.

Show the rest of the world americans don't treat politicians above the law.

http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

That's why I'm still

That's why I'm still supporting ron paul.

I Don't care if this pathetic adminstration are for impeachment, they should be indicted for treason.

Due Process

This is why he's trustworthy. He believes in due process as inalienable, and keeps his oath of office. If I were ever unjustly accused of a crime, I'd love to have him on the bench or on my jury.

IMissLiberty

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Hang him

Sorry guys, but they both should hang from the white house steps AND NO ONE seems to be doing to anything to bring them to justice. I feel after they leave office nobody will do anything and no message will be sent to future public officials who break the Constitution. They send soldiers to die on a lie, outed a spy for political reasons, spying on Americans, torture camps. Laws are good for us but not for them. By not acting they agree with there system and break there oath to uphold the Constitution. Protocal can not be followed when those proper committees do not act (because of an election) and proper investigations are blocked by those who are being investigated, just my view.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."

good point

good point, yoAdrian. we "know" that bush and cheney are guilty, and deserve the death penalty for their crimes (much less impeachment). however, voting to impeach them without the due process of the House Judiciary System would be just like sending a war protester to jail and repossessing all of his property (without Habeus Corpus), just because somebody "knows" that they're guilty.

same difference. just some brain food :)

I don't believe that your

I don't believe that your example of sending someone to jail without a trial is equal to voting for impeachment without a Judicial review. Impeachment simply means there is evidence that should be looked at in a public trial, just the same way that we american citizens are tried.

And all we "know" is that there is a great amount of evidence against Cheney, again which should be looked at in a legal trial made public to the world.

I cannot, AGREE with him more!!!

A man of principles.

Absolutely reaffirms why I love the Doctor and support this movement. Why Ron Paul voted to table the Impeachment resolution, reluctantly: a thorough investigation following proper Constitutional protocol is necessary, if we are to have a non-loaded, non-political, but a Constitutional prosecution of Impeachment.

Despite the fact that I personally believe the entire Exec branch should be sacked for criminal negligence for 9/11, to fixing intel to fit the policy on Iraq/Afghanistan, I have, over time, progressed to a position of not impeaching.

I believe it will be far easier to prosecute, once they are out of office, as they'll have no diplomatic immunity as a head of a State, or Cabinet level positions, as well as not having the protection of "plausible deniability" clause.

Bring on the indictments.

While the last and current session of Congress, the 109 and 110th, have been utterly worthless, it wouldn't further help, that the entire 2008 would be occupied with nothing but impeachment hearing; even if Cheney is convicted, the decision would come near inauguration time, anyhow. Besides, impeachment is a political decision, not a criminal indictment and conviction. A separate criminal hearing would need to occur, afterwards anyways.

The Congress is just killing time, hoping the neoCON lunatics won't declare martial law, while they're busy doing non-binding resolutions, so urgent that they'd threaten with a letter of contempt, for over a month past deadline, and press on with non-investigative "investigations."

So, short of locking them all up for Misprison of Treason, or sacking them all to a long imprisonment in a mental asylum, or worse, at Git'mo (you'd have to be insane to pass Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, John Warner Defense Authorization Act, HR1955, etc) I cannot see anything more apropos than letting the public, at least those that still pay attention non-sheeple, watch them with derision and contempt at their dying efficacy. 110th is worthless, let their own constituents vote them out for their inaction to impeach, in November. All of them, except RP, of course.

Short of illegal Iran invasion, which I hope despite the turmoil it may cause, a military mutiny, NOT a coup, would be a more preferred outcome, instead of impeachment, if we are to stop the neoCONs' Iran ambition; one where a group of conscientious Constitutional officers that still may exist among the ranks, refusing to carry out illegal and immoral military orders, would set a precedence and enough momentum throughout the chain of command, where the entire armed forces would cease arms, until the Courts come in to properly sort it out. The military officers are required, by law, to refuse illegal unConstitutional orders. Perhaps they may prove themselves be worthy, and brave, yet.

One can only hope.

Short of that, shoring up ammo and emergency rations would probably be recommended.

The 44th President of the United States of America:
Dr. RON PAUL, Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 20, 2017!!!!!
B E L I E V E

"non-loaded and

"non-loaded and non-political" Do you think that people in the Judiciary branch are not these things? I suppose they are better to decide than a public court hearing eh. Don't think so.

IS HE PRESIDENT YET?

FROM OUR LIPS TO GOD'S EARS AND HEART. Pray for the next President of the United States of America---RON PAUL!!!
Oh and do not forget to give November 11th in the name of our troops.

Dr. Paul 2008

bump

*

OMG

Talk about getting off the track! According to the NYT article about the rally today, most supporters are Republicans. I doubt it would be politically wise to start impeaching other Republicans, with the help of the most famous communist in the congress! Besides, removing one bad apple is not going to fix the whole 'system' which is what is really wrong. I'm glad Ron saw this as a waste of time.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Despite whether or not the

Despite whether or not the impeachment would have been approved or disapproved in court, the move for impeachment shows the world that there are americans that do believe that politicians who may have broken the law, do not go unnoticed or untried in this country.

Jane!

Your post sounds like Ron Paul did it for the political reasons.
I know that you are the biggest Ron Paul supporter among us, but your post doesn't do the justice to Our Next President.
PS.
Sorry to say , but you still think GOP and Democrats are two different parties. Not at this moment. They are just two fractions of one party
called: Council on Foreign Relations/AIPAC/Bilderberg.

Dennis just want some MSM

Dennis just want some MSM coverage for his campaign. That's why he rushed such bill this year. Everyone knows Cheney lies, but why not 2 years ago?

Ron Paul cast his vote by constitution.

2008 is the year to restore the constitution!!!

Ron Paul, the Thomas Jefferson in 21st century

The constitution does not

The constitution does not say the Judiciary branch must review a move to impeach. That was Paul's opinion.

Is he President yet? :-)

Is he President yet? :-)

We'll wake you, Lori !

,
Go back to sleep!
I am typing quietly.